[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4335-H4355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   OCEAN SHIPPING REFORM ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2149.

                              {time}  1531


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2149) to reduce regulation, promote efficiencies, and encourage 
competition in the international ocean transportation system of the 
United States, to eliminate the Federal Maritime Commission, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Regula in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not often that we can bring to the floor a piece 
of legislation that can boost the entire United States economy but this 
legislation, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, can do just that.
  Mr. Chairman, while it is true that by abolishing the Federal 
Maritime Commission, which this bill does, we can save about $20 
million a year in the Federal expenditures, that really does not tell 
the story. The real story here is that by abolishing the Federal 
Maritime Commission, by eliminating the tariff filings, we can 
stimulate this segment of American transportation to the point that we 
can save for America close to $2 billion a year in increased 
productivity through increased competition.
  Yes, this abolishes the Federal Maritime Commission. Yes, it 
eliminates tariff filings, although it requires that such filings be 
made public. But it also provides for private contracts. This is at the 
heart of the bill, because if we are going to retain antitrust 
immunity, which this bill does, and which the shippers were very much 
opposed to but in the spirit of compromise agreed to, if we are going 
to retain antitrust immunity, then it is crucial that the carriers and 
the shippers be able to enter into private contracts.

  This is not a new idea. This is an idea which has been proven, and it 
has been proven through the Staggers Act, which was the Rail Reform 
Act. The railroads have the ability with their shippers to enter into 
private contracts, and we all know the great success story of the 
revitalization of the railroad industry. The trucking industry has the 
ability to enter into private contracts with shippers and carriers. The 
aviation industry has the ability to enter into private contracts with 
shippers and carriers.
  Indeed, every mode of transportation in America, freight 
transportation, has the ability to enter into these private contracts 
except for ocean carriage, and that is one of the fundamental reforms 
that we make today. We say that as all the other modes may do, now 
shippers and the carriers in ocean shipping can also enter into private 
carriage. It is a critical, fundamental part of the compromise of this 
legislation.
  Beyond that, we are told by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that 
the shipping cartels fix prices and that is what we have had up to this 
point in ocean shipping, cartels fixing prices enforced by the Federal 
Maritime Commission. We are told by the Department of Agriculture that 
that price-fixing amounted to an 18-percent surcharge on the total 
ocean transportation cost of agricultural products.
  And so indeed by injecting this competition, we are going to be able 
to make agriculture more productive. Indeed, we are going to be able to 
make virtually all modes that rely on ocean shipping more productive.
  It is important to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, the United States is the 
only country in the world that maintains an agency to regulate and 
enforce Government ocean shipping controls. The time has come to 
eliminate the Federal Maritime Commission.
  There are several points that served as a basis for the delicate 
compromise on this legislation, a compromise which had strong 
bipartisan support, indeed was passed out of committee by voice vote 
with nary a negative expression against this legislation. Republicans 
and Democrats alike cosponsored this legislation and passed it 
overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, out of the committee by voice vote.

  The agreement was very simple. The shippers agreed that the ocean 
carriers

[[Page H4336]]

and the ports would retain their antitrust immunity. That is what the 
carriers and the ports got in this compromise, including the authority 
to set their prices with antitrust immunity and publish those prices.
  In exchange for this fundamental concession by the shippers, the 
carriers agreed to accept reforms to instill greater competition among 
the carriers. These reforms are the elimination of tariff and contract 
filings and enforcement, and the authority for shippers and carriers to 
enter into the private contractual arrangements which every other mode 
of transportation has. Let me emphasize, seagoing labor, the Seafarers, 
the part of organized labor most directly affected by this legislation, 
agreed to this compromise. Indeed, we bring this balance to the floor 
today.
  Let me also emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that originally the bureaucratic 
ocean and shipping regime, including tariff filings and compulsory 
publication of contract terms, originally was designed to protect 
American businesses. But today, however, the ocean transportation 
system works against U.S. exporters and importers, and it benefits 
those very foreign competitors of U.S. business and foreign flag owners 
who dominate the price-fixing cartels. Indeed, these foreign vessel 
owners control nearly 85 percent of the regulated ocean shipping.
  So we bring to the floor today legislation which is good for America, 
legislation which had the strong, strong support, bipartisan support of 
virtually every member on the committee. I would urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation, this compromise, without amendment, because 
if we undo the compromise, then we undo the reforms and the benefits 
which are so crucial and critical to the future of American 
productivity.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, many writers and historians have described the United 
States as an ``Island Nation''. The oceans that have protected us from 
foreign invasion are also the highways over which most of this 
country's imports and exports must travel to market.
  While most people recognize that the coastal cities in our country 
grew up around ports, today, every congressional district in the United 
States is touched by this linkage to the world market--whether it be 
iron ranges in my district, or wheat fields in Kansas. That's why we 
must all be concerned about how international shipping is regulated.
  The bill now before us would take major steps in shifting the 
regulation of international shipping from the Government to the 
marketplace. In general, I support this approach. The market can do a 
much better job than the Government in promoting efficiencies and low 
prices for consumers. That was proved with the successful deregulation 
of the domestic airlines, trucking, bus, and railroad industries.
  I also support most of the provisions of H.R. 2149, including the 
provisions which eliminate the Federal Maritime Commission; prohibit 
ocean carrier conferences from restricting the rights of individual 
carriers to make contracts with shippers; and eliminate the requirement 
that tariffs must be filed with a governmental agency.
  However, I believe that the bill goes too far in one important 
respect. By combining continued antitrust immunity for conferences of 
carriers with a right of these carriers to make secret agreements with 
individual shippers, the bill is likely to lead to less competition and 
higher rates. Later, I plan to offer an amendment to prevent these 
unfortunate consequences by banning secret agreements.
  In evaluating the problems with secret agreements, we must be aware 
of some basic economic facts about ocean shipping today.
  At the end of World War II, the United States had the greatest 
commercial fleet in the world to carry this commerce. Today, less than 
4 percent of our commerce is transported on U.S.-flag vessels. More 
than ever before, we are dependent on foreign vessels owned by foreign 
citizens to transport the lifeblood of our Nation. Foreign carriers do 
not necessarily have the best interest of United States' citizens at 
heart. Foreign carriers can be motivated by their own nationalism, 
their business interests, or the interests of their government. Foreign 
carriers can operate as an instrument of their country's corporate or 
governmental policy. To further these policies, foreign carriers can 
set rates which increase the costs of our exporters and lower the 
shipping costs of their country's corporations which export to the 
United States. Thereby, foreign carriers can place U.S. manufacturers, 
even those only serving domestic markets, at a disadvantage in 
competing against foreign manufactured goods.
  The ability of foreign carriers to create unfair advantages for their 
country's exporters will be greatly enhanced if the foreign carriers 
are allowed to enter secret agreements with these exporters, with 
discriminatory terms. Our shippers will be unaware of these agreements 
and have less leverage to obtain comparable agreements.
  Secret agreements will also accelerate current trends toward industry 
concentration. In this regard, I would like to take a moment to read to 
you the views of one of the biggest supporters of H.R. 2140, John 
Clancy, the president and CEO of Sea-Land Services, Inc. According to 
an interview he granted with World Wide Shipping in September, Mr. 
Clancy believe that:

       A few giant shipping consortia with global reach and the 
     freedom to function like contract carriers will dominate the 
     world's sealanes before the end of the century. He painted a 
     picture of a maritime environment where a few super-consortia 
     will control 85-90% of the world's containerships. The 
     byproduct, he says, is the demise of the niche carrier, the 
     feeder line and the north-south lines with no other links in 
     the shipping chain.

  The controlling factor in this, according to Mr. Clancy, is the 
pending legislation to deregulate the U.S. shipping industry.
  I thought the purpose of deregulation legislation was to increase 
competition, not to eliminate it. That's the fundamental flaw in H.R. 
2149. It lacks balance. Everyone is looking at the quick, short-term 
impact--everyone; that is, except Mr. Clancy. He has his eye on the 
ball--a short-term cut in rates resulting from secret contracts 
under deregulation will drive his competitors into bankruptcy and he 
and the other super consortia members will have the market to 
themselves, with unlimited ability to control the price of 
international shipping--whether it be household goods, food and grain, 
raw materials, automobile parts, or clothing.

  Secret agreements will be a major weapon enabling Mr. Clancy to 
achieve his goals. It will permit large companies to offer lower rates 
to larger shippers. If smaller shippers and carriers are unaware of 
these deals they will find it difficult to compete. The end result is 
likely to be exactly what Mr. Clancy predicts. The demise of the niche 
carrier, the feeder line and the north-south lines.
  I served on the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries when 
the Shipping Act of 1984 was written. One of the fundamental purposes 
of the 1984 act was to counterbalance the legalization of international 
cartels that have anti-trust immunity by requiring public disclosure of 
the agreements between the carriers in the cartel, and the essential 
terms of the contracts between the carriers and the shippers. This way 
the Government and public will know that ports and manufacturers in the 
United States are not being discriminated against. By allowing secret 
contracts, this bill eliminates this balance and undermines the concept 
of common carriage.
  I reiterate that there are good provisions in the Ocean Shipping 
Reform Act. There should be less governmental interference in the 
marketplace. The Federal Maritime Commission should be eliminated. The 
marketplace is a better regulator than the Government. But for the 
market to work, there must be daylight in the market. Carriers, 
conferences, consortia, and shippers shouldn't be allowed to enter into 
secret deals that can harm our ports, manufacturers, and consumers. 
It's one thing to allow for confidential contracting in our domestic 
commerce where the Department of Justice or the investigating agency 
can easily obtain evidence by subpoena. But this isn't the domestic 
commerce. These contracts are being made and executed in

[[Page H4337]]

cities around the globe--Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, London, Rio de 
Janiero, and Rotterdam. Many foreign governments have blocking statutes 
to prevent discovery of evidence by U.S. investigators. It will be 
virtually impossible to obtain information about the content of these 
secret deals before the harm is done to U.S. ports, manufacturers, and 
consumers. Was it good for the U.S. consumer and manufacturers when 
OPEC got together to control the world price of oil?
  At the appropriate time I will offer an amendment to require that 
essential terms of these confidential contracts be made publicly 
available and to transfer the residual functions of the FMC to the 
Surface Transportation Board that currently regulates ocean shipping 
between the continental United States and Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, 
and Guam. I believe that my amendment will not gut or kill this bill 
but will restore the proper balance to this legislation and allow 
market forces to regulate this industry instead of the Federal 
Government.
  Now you have already heard from the other side that this amendment 
will gut the bill. There's nothing further from the truth. The fact is 
my amendment would still allow for private contracts between shippers 
and carriers. My amendment would not disturb the important provision in 
the bill that conferences may not prevent individual carriers from 
making separate contracts. All my amendment would do is require that 
certain essential terms of these contracts be made public so that there 
would be an equal playing field in terms of competition. In addition, 
my amendment would also allow for the transfer of FMC's remaining 
functions to the Secretary of Transportation with the minor 
modification that the Secretary then delegate those responsibilities to 
the Surface Transportation Board.
  Hardly ``killer'' changes, I submit.
  Lastly, you have also heard that this bill received bipartisan 
support in the committee and that even though no hearings were held on 
it there was opportunity for comment and reaction.
  That's true. But unfortunately as is often the case, when a bill lays 
around for 8 months after markup as this bill did, new issues and new 
interested parties emerge.
  While some may charge that particular groups came late in the game, 
the real issue is not ``when'' but ``what.'' In this case, the issues 
that have been raised are legitimate public policy issues which must be 
addressed. My amendment addresses these issues, while at the same time 
preserving the basic structure of deregulation established by the bill.
  If my amendment is adopted, I will support final passage of the bill. 
Without the amendment, I believe that the bill is highly 
anticompetitive and I will urge a ``no'' vote on final passage.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], the distinguished chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the 
chairman of the full committee, for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to comment to the gentleman from 
Minnesota, I think he took umbrage with my earlier statement when I 
used the words ``political intimidation.'' Well, I use those words 
again, but I certainly meant nothing personal about that, I will say to 
the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Folks, is there anybody in this great hall who would dare think that 
political intimidation is not an ingredient that we see every day up 
here? All of us, nobody is immune to it. Sure, political intimidation 
is kicked around. I did not mean anything personally by that at all. 
But I do stand by my choice of words. I do think political intimidation 
is involved here.
  I have heard it said, Mr. Chairman, that oftentimes the lyrics of 
music sometimes can bring things together. So I heard a song not long 
ago, and I am going to try to connect it, Mr. Chairman, to what we are 
about today.
  The song was written by Tom T. Hall, the country balladeer, country 
story teller, who was reared I think in Congressman Rogers' district in 
Kentucky, and it is entitled ``The Ballad of $40''. The lyrics depict a 
fellow who died and he was indebted to a friend in the amount of forty 
bucks.
  The creditor friend goes to the funeral, and the lyrics depict him 
standing alongside the church there viewing the activity. And as he 
sees the survivors of the deceased, his debtor, walk by, he says, 
``That must be the widow in the car, and would you take a look at that; 
My, what a pretty dress, you know some women do look good in black. He 
ain't even in the ground, they tell me that his truck is up for sale. 
They say she took it pretty hard, but you can't tell too much behind a 
veil.''
  Well, many people up here obviously have been wearing veils. Veils 
conceal the eyes, and observers therefore are unable to determine the 
sincerity of the voices behind the veils, because the veils conceal 
eyes and faces. The observer is, therefore, at a disadvantage.
  We were assured by our Democrat friends that they were supportive of 
this legislation. And as the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman 
Shuster, said earlier, we worked hard, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
to strike a delicate, yet well-oiled balance.
  Strategy sessions were conducted and staffers attended these sessions 
representing Democrats and Republicans alike. A man said to me 
yesterday who represents one of the groups supportive of this bill in 
its present form, he said, ``I feel violated. I went to those strategy 
sessions and shared information that was very personal to my group, 
thinking people there were supportive of this legislation. Now I find 
out they were spying.'' Those were his words, not mine. He felt 
violated, he said.
  All was well, Mr.. Chairman, until the Transportation Trades 
Department of the AFL-CIO weighed in and told many of my friends on the 
other side it was time for them to withdraw their support, withdraw 
their support, despite past assurances that they were in fact 
supportive.
  Have we come to the point in this body where one's word, one's 
promise, has no significance, has no meaning?
  Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to elaborate about the 11th hour involvement 
of the labor unions. Now, I am not being critical of rank and file, 
card-carrying union members. My complaint is with union bosses. Union 
members are rather flexible politically. They vote Republican, 
Democrat, Liberal, Conservative. Union bosses, on the other hand, with 
rare exceptions, vote straight Democrat, because I assume big 
government, sometimes intrusive government, has appeal to these people. 
Well, these bosses yell ``jump'', and many respond ``how high must I 
jump?''

  Recently some of my colleagues charged that the NRA had too much 
clout with this Congress. Well, I wonder if these same people believe 
the AFL-CIO has too much clout? Oh, I guess it is perfectly permissible 
for the AFL-CIO to dictate the course of legislation, but highly 
improper for the NRA and other groups to do likewise. The imposition of 
a double standard, I ask, Mr. Chairman? Perhaps. Perhaps indeed.
  A sea change has occurred on this bill. As recently as last week, I 
say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I say to my friend from Minnesota, 
the bill was on its way to inevitable passage because of bipartisan 
support. Then came the AFL-CIO with their marching orders. Now those 
who previously supported the bill have jumped ship.
  A man's word was at one time his bond, but obviously not this day. 
Too many people, Mr. Chairman, are wearing veils, enabling them to say 
one thing and do another, and yet often times get away untouched, 
unpunished, with this elusive approach.
  This is a good piece of legislation in its present form, and America, 
as I said in my remarks during the debate on the rule, will benefit. 
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, just mentioned how 
much money will be realized by Americans if this bill is enacted. I 
urge my friends to support it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H4338]]

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Last 
August, I raised questions about the wisdom of this piece of 
legislation. Here is why I am concerned about this bill: $571 billion 
of economic activity move through our Nation's ports; 15 million jobs 
are generated in those ports. That is one in every seven jobs in the 
country. Oceangoing vessels move over 95 percent of the U.S. overseas 
trade by weight and 75 percent by value. This generates an estimated 
$15 billion in U.S. customs duty revenue. These are truly staggering 
numbers and the bill today jeopardizes all of them. Listen my 
colleagues, if you have a small or medium sized port and you support 
H.R. 2149, you can kiss your port goodbye.
  I want to cite a September 1995 article in World Wide Shipping which 
discusses ocean shipping deregulation. It states that a few giant 
shipping consortia with global reach will dominate the world sealanes 
before the end of the century, four short years away. One of the prime 
supporters of today's bill outlined the scenario where maritime 
container commerce would be 85 to 90 percent controlled by a few 
conglomerated super-companies and that is the driving factor in today's 
move to deregulate the U.S. shipping industry and carrier operating 
alliances. The Republican revolution is putting deregulation into the 
fast forward mode. At what cost? The byproduct will be the demise of 
the niche carrier, the feeder lines and the north-south lines with no 
other links in the shipping chain. One can almost hear the long knives 
sharpening as these huge combinations prepare to carve up the commerce 
of the United States.
  You will be told that this is the wave of the future. This is the key 
to international competition. We were told the same things before the 
current downsizing craze and the merger and acquisition craze of the 
1980's. Tell this lame economics to the workers who have been laid off 
and the port workers who will lose their jobs. See if they believe you.
  I want to quote a former Republican colleague of ours from Maryland 
who has stood foresquare in opposition to this legislation, Helen 
Bentley, recognized as an expert on maritime commerce. Ms. Bentley is 
unequivocal: she says that this legislation will result in the 
reduction of U.S. ports to as few as four. There are now over 100 
public ports serving this country. From 100 ports to 4, now that's 
downsizing any corporate pirate can be proud of.
  This bill is simple. Big shippers and big carriers have gotten 
together and put the screws to the nations' commerce. Ask your local 
port authority. They oppose this legislation and have been threatened 
and punished for it. Right now, port-critical language in the Water 
Resources Development Act is being threatened with reprisal.
  There has never been even a single hearing in the House on this bill. 
One hearing was held last February 1995 on maritime issues. Last week, 
there was even a hearing on the Federal Maritime Administration 
authorization but this legislation was not even mentioned. If you read 
the February 1995 testimony, only one, single witness favored the 
position taken in this bill. There was strong opposition from every 
other sector of the maritime community against wholesale deregulation. 
Then something mysterious happened. Let me now quote page 10 of the 
committee report:

       It should be noted that during the Spring and Summer of 
     1995 numerous, in depth meetings and discussions were held 
     under the committee's auspices to forge a bill that could 
     enjoy wide support among all segments of the ocean shipping 
     industry to the greatest extent possible.

  I note that the use of the phrase ``forge a bill'' could be construed 
in the same sense one could forge a check because this bill is drawn on 
an insufficient basis. A bill was introduced one day before the markup 
in August, yet it took until November to file the report. There is 
something very fishy about this bill and it smells of backroom, closed 
door, special interest at the expense of everyone else. I say let the 
sunshine in.

  If this legislation enjoys widespread support in the ocean shipping 
community, why are responsible parties expressing concern about this 
bill being subjected to bullying, threats, and intimidation? Why were 
all the discussions conducted behind closed doors? I know that 
responsible parties with legitimate interests like the port authorities 
and labor have been repeatedly threatened because they have voiced 
concerns about what this legislation means.
  Here are a few of the concerns that have been raised about this bill.
  H.R. 2149 would allow large carriers and large shippers to 
discriminate against ports in favor of super-hub ports without public 
notice or public recourse.
  H.R. 2149 would effectively impose higher rates on small and medium 
sized shippers to subsidize secret deals made between large carriers 
and large shippers. Many shippers would simply go out of business.
  H.R. 2149 would result in massive job dislocation in port 
communities. Wages and benefits would be pushed downward as ports 
compete against ports and exporters compete against exporters.
  H.R. 2149 is not deregulation. It is cartelling. H.R. 2149 will not 
result in an ocean transportation industry governed by market 
principles or competition. It will result in a system of cartels which 
will operate with legal impunity. The United States has never before 
recognized a cartel of this type.
  H.R. 2149 threatens billions of dollars in taxpayer investment in 
public ports and facilities.
  I think that these are issues of consequence. I think that a radical 
change in $571 billion in commerce merits at least a single hearing in 
an open and free atmosphere.
  Here is the bottomline: H.R. 2149 smells of the bad old days of 
monopoly power. It reeks of secret contracts, immunity from antitrust 
laws and no Government safeguards to act as a referee. If you like 
secret deals, monopolies, unemployment, and recession, while billions 
of dollars get funnelled directly into the pockets of the cartels, then 
you should vote for H.R. 2149. If you care about the Nation, the 
economy or government conducted in the sunshine, you will oppose this 
bill.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to emphasize that the private contracts which pejoratively are called 
secret contracts, these private contracts are not different from the 
contracts that exist in Staggers, in rail, they are no different from 
the contracts that exist in trucking, in aviation, and every other 
mode. So for that reason we should simply bring ocean shipping into 
what is going to become the twenty-first century.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2149, the Ocean Shipping 
Reform Act, and in opposition to the Oberstar amendment.
  This legislation would make significant reforms in the regulatory 
regime contained in the Shipping Act of 1984. H.R. 2149 represents the 
bipartisan compromise that would reform this outdated regime by 
deregulating ocean shipping, infusing new price competition into the 
industry, eliminating the need for the Federal Maritime Commission, and 
maintaining oversight of ocean shipping conferences. As chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, I believe that H.R. 2149 moves this important 
industry towards full market competition and I fully support it.
  Under the Shipping Act of 1984, ocean carriers--most of whom are 
foreign--are allowed to organize themselves into cartels, known as 
conferences, and collectively fix their prices, set sailing schedules, 
and make other business arrangements. In fact, the Shipping Act 
provides an antitrust exemption for international ocean carriers and 
their conferences, thereby sanctioning price fixing agreements. In 
contrast, H.R. 2149 would lessen the power of the conferences to fix 
prices by authorizing private contracts for ocean transportation, as 
provided in all other areas of transportation.

[[Page H4339]]

  During the consideration of the Shipping Act in the 98th Congress, 
the majority of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, including 
me, pushed hard for the concept of independent action. Independent 
action means that an ocean carrier member of a cartel can act 
independently of the cartel in setting its prices. We were able to 
achieve that goal in a limited fashion. However, we did not feel that 
the 1984 legislation went far enough in ending price fixing.
  Fortunately, H.R. 2149 takes another step away from Government-
sanctioned price fixing by allowing shippers and carriers to enter into 
private contracts away from the prying eyes of cartel enforcers. My 
preference would be to end the antitrust immunity altogether for these 
cartels. However, I am realistic enough to understand that H.R. 2149 
represents a delicate compromise among many competing interests. While 
it does not go as far as I would like, it is a vast improvement over 
current law.
  Unfortunately, Congressman Oberstar's amendment would upset this 
delicate compromise by requiring prior publication of these private 
ocean shipping contracts. Without the ability to negotiate reasonable 
transportation rates in private, U.S. shippers--that is the tens of 
thousands of American businesses who use the services of carriers--
would be at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors 
who are not compelled to publicize their transportation costs. This 
amendment would undermine the pro-competitive thrust of H.R. 2149, and 
I strongly urge you to vote against it.
  The biggest beneficiaries of the public contracts that the Oberstar 
amendment seeks to preserve would be the foreign-dominated shipping 
cartels who fix prices that they charge American businesses. Over 85 
percent of U.S. goods are carried aboard foreign vessels, and this 
amendment allows foreign ship owners to avoid competition and maintain 
high profits at the expense of U.S. businesses and consumers.
  Further, the Oberstar amendment would not help small shippers as its 
proponents claim. According to a recent article in the Journal of 
Commerce, getting the Government out of ocean shipping contracting may 
allow smaller shippers to get a better bargain than large shippers. 
Obviously, the thousands of small and medium shippers who support H.R. 
2149 agree.
  Finally, do not be fooled by the claim that the private nature of 
these contracts is bad for the shippers. On the contrary, privacy 
allows competition in rates. Publicizing prices only allows the 
foreign-dominated cartels to enforce the prices they have fixed. 
Without this mode of enforcement, competition will ultimately undermine 
the cartels.
  The proponents of the amendment argue that the antitrust immunity 
provided by the Shipping Act somehow counsels against private 
contracts. However, the antitrust immunity applies only to agreements 
among the carriers themselves and with terminal operators. It does not 
apply to the private contracts between carriers and shippers that the 
amendment seeks to overturn. Thus, the continuation of antitrust 
immunity for the cartels is not an argument against private contracts 
between carriers and shippers.
  Cast your vote for the free market, lower prices and actual 
competition in ocean shipping. Vote for H.R. 2149 and against the 
Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think those listening to the debate are perhaps 
becoming a bit confused. We have heard from the esteemed chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary how these secret agreements and the 
antitrust exemptions will lead to a freer market, more competition, 
benefit all shippers, particularly possibly maybe smaller shippers and 
others, and those who have been listening to the debate have heard the 
opposite from this side of the aisle.
  I guess that is a good argument to basically withdraw this bill and 
go back to the committee of jurisdiction on which I sit and hold a 
hearing. It would be nice to hear from the broad interests that are 
going to be impacted by this bill in some detail how they believe this 
will affect American ports, American shippers, American workers, and 
the American maritime industry, such as it is. But no hearings were 
held and none will be held before this bill is voted on. That is 
absurd, for something that has such a tremendous economic impact, or 
potential impact on this country.
  I respectfully disagree with the prior speakers on that side of the 
aisle. I believe that antitrust immunity linked to secret, nonpublished 
tariffs and rates will lead to an anticompetitive environment, an 
environment that is particularly to the disadvantage of small- and 
medium-sized shippers and the businesses which they serve. I believe 
that this will also bring about problems for medium-sized and smaller 
ports in America.
  I do not believe a country that concentrates all of its shipping in 
two or three large ports is a healthy nation, particularly a maritime 
nation such as the United States of America. So for those Members who 
represent States which contain medium-sized or smaller-sized ports, if 
they do not represent a megaport, this bill in all probability will 
deprive their port, their State, of vital interests and of carriage 
through those areas. That means job loss, competitive loss, competitive 
disadvantage for their States.
  Beyond that, I disagree also, Mr. Chairman, on the fact that this 
will somehow disadvantage the foreign cartels; to have antitrust 
immunity, and secret agreements, and no transparency, and no 
publication of rates and tariffs is somehow going to disadvantage 
foreign cartels, who are right now trying to drive American shippers 
out of business and trying to channel business through a few select 
ports. No, I do not believe this bill is going to help that situation. 
In fact, I believe it is going to make it worse.
  There is only one remedy. We can get the savings proposed here by 
eliminating the Maritime Commission. We can get the savings and the 
efficiency that underlie other parts of this bill, and we can maintain 
competition, maintain a viable environment for small shippers, medium 
shippers, small ports, medium ports if the bill is amended with the 
Oberstar amendment, which the chairman of the full committee objects to 
vehemently.
  Again, perhaps we could sort those differences out if we went back 
and held a hearing. But absent a hearing, I think we should act in a 
way that is prudent to protect America's interests and the diversity of 
interests in this country by adopting the Oberstar amendment. And 
absent the Oberstar amendment, I and many others will not support this 
legislation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond to my good friend from Oregon that, first, hearings were 
held on February 2 on ocean shipping deregulation. Second, in the last 
Congress there were at least three different major bills on which 
precisely the procedure which was followed in the last Congress was 
followed in this Congress, and that is hearings on airline 
improvements, hearings on trucking deregulation, and hearings on 
amending the FAA, all of which, under the control of our Democratic 
friends, hearings were held on the issue but no hearings were held on 
the actual text of the legislation. So we are simply following the same 
procedure that our Democratic friends followed in the last Congress.
  And, finally, I would also say that my good friend, the gentleman 
from Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, in his statement on August 1 in the 
committee, said that, and I quote him directly, the basis of this 
legislation is bipartisan; a cooperative manner in which the bill was 
developed, and the willingness of Chairman Coble to let the bill hang 
out there for a time and let people digest it, and comment on it, and 
be comfortable with it and with changes that need to be made.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I got into this process early 
serving on the subcommittee, and at the point we entered the debate 
there was a mechanism where we fixed prices and the cartels and other 
parts of the world fixed prices. How can we, if we want to increase our 
exports, use shipping when the prices are fixed artificially high?

[[Page H4340]]

How do we expect to change our balance of payments if we are going to 
allow the shipping to be artificially high?

                              {time}  1615

  So the gentleman from North Carolina, Chairman Coble, and I and other 
members of the committee said the end of the Maritime Commission, the 
end of price fixing, we are going to join the late 1800's and we are 
going to have competition.
  No one thought we would do it. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Coble] assured them, the chairman of the committee, that we were crazy 
enough to eliminate them, just as has been suggested by Democratic 
Congresses before that. This mechanism was old. Seven years ago we 
asked that they study this mechanism, and this Congress demanded that 
they study this mechanism. And because the carriers had a lock grip on 
the Maritime Commission, they came back with no recommendation, 
surprise, surprise.
  Another 4 years went on after that and nothing happened. But then we 
got a new Congress and we began addressing problems. We said the old 
days are over, this mechanism is going. They are going under the 
Department of Transportation and this industry is going to be 
deregulated, just as rail and trucking was before it.
  The rail units have, quote, secret contracts. Is it not funny when we 
have a business agreement with somebody and we do not post it on the 
wall, it becomes evil at the last moment? These are now secret 
contracts. The shipping people and the rail industry have secret 
contracts. Truckers have secret contractors. And while we post the 
airline rates for you and me, we know what we pay when we walk in, the 
airlines are free to go to a corporation and say, ``Use us a bunch of 
times and we will give you a discount.'' Those are secret contracts.
  So now we are being besieged to, well, just take that out, do not 
allow competition, post the rates which then become the rates. 
Everybody will have the same rate once again, back to the old rule. So 
what happened? We allowed shippers and carriers, those who have ships, 
those who make the product, whether they be small manufacturers or 
farmers, large goods, small goods, they got into a room and they 
decided they could work it out by themselves, once they realized we 
were crazy enough to get rid of their cartel mechanism, and they worked 
it out.
  They came out and just showed what their final product was and 
everybody signed off on it, until the unions decided this was 1996 and 
they wanted to play politics. They wanted to muscle around on the floor 
of the legislative body and they said, ``Oh, we no longer think this is 
a good deal.'' We cannot lose American jobs in shipping because most of 
the people in shipping, whether they are American flags or foreign 
flags, are foreigners.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to alert our Members to this 
bill that we will be voting on here this afternoon, and I would like to 
pay a very high compliment to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Coble, the chairman of the subcommittee, and obviously the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster. It is great to stand up here and 
be with Chairman Shuster, not only because we won the last time but, 
second, he generally wins, so it is good to be working with him this 
time.
  But I want to say to our Members that this is another outstanding 
effort by this Congress to try to move things literally with an aim 
toward the 21st century. Now, I think we have got to give Jimmy Carter 
a little bit of credit, President Carter a little bit of credit for 
deregulating a number of industries: the trucking industry, the bus 
industry. We are trying to do some deregulation of railroads and of 
airlines, as you know.
  All we are trying to do here is to say that the time has come in 
America where we ought to deregulate some of the activity involved in 
shipping. And at the same time, very similar to what we did in the 
Interstate Commerce Commission, we are saying we do not need this old 
bureaucracy anymore.

  This bill will call for the dismantling of the Federal Maritime 
Commission. This is a fantastic vote for this Congress so we will be 
able to achieve several things: One is, we will deregulate because we 
believe that regulations cost money and strangle business. Second, we 
will have a lowering of prices. It will be pro-consumer. Third, it is 
pro-taxpayer because we are again trying to pull another one of these 
tired old dinosaur-like bureaucracies out by the roots and to suggest 
that we move into the 21st century.
  So the members of our party in particular should be very enthusiastic 
to vote for less government, less regulation, and giving the taxpayers 
a break on some of the money that they are sending up here to keep 
piling up World War II bureaucracy. We are going to cut through that.
  To my Democratic friends who are market-oriented, this makes all the 
sense in the world. If you believe in deregulating trucking, if you 
believe that people have been served well in this country, consumers, 
by a better product with more competition, you need to vote for this 
bill. If you want to get rid of some of the World War II relics, you 
have got to come to the floor and vote for this bill.
  I one more time want to compliment Chairman Shuster and Chairman 
Coble for their outstanding work, and would ask for very strong support 
of this legislation.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think 
the gentleman in the budget area said $17 million savings on the 
commission, lower rates to consumers and a better trade balance. I ask 
for an ``aye'' vote, and a ``no'' vote on the Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I am sorry my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, left the floor so 
precipitously. All he said, we are in agreement with. There is nothing 
that my amendment does that will affect in any way anything that he 
said. We are all in agreement about this deregulation, about all the 
good things he talked about. We just want to correct one defective 
aspect of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Lipinski].
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding me the time, and I want to say that I feel I am compelled to 
speak on this particular bill because I had the fortune of being the 
last chairman of the late, great Merchant Marine subcommittee.
  H.R. 2149, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, provides badly needed 
reform to the ocean shipping industry. The ocean shipping industry is 
one of the only transportation industries still heavily regulated by 
the U.S. Federal Government. By substantially deregulating the ocean 
shipping industry, this bill has the potential to restore the 
competitiveness of the American shipper.
  The United States is the only country in the world that maintains a 
Government agency to regulate ocean shipping. For this reason, the 
Ocean Shipping Reform Act sunsets the Federal Maritime Commission--a 
Federal agency which has clearly outlived its usefulness.
  The Ocean Shipping Reform Act also eliminates the detrimental tariff-
filing and enforcement requirements. It preserves common carriage for 
all sizes of U.S. shippers who choose that method of ocean 
transportation. Most importantly, the bill also strengthens the laws 
that prohibit unfair trade practices on behalf of foreign carriers. 
Under the bill, the United States will retain the authority to police 
foreign carriers and governments who set anticompetitively low rates 
and other foreign activities detrimental to U.S. carriers.
  Despite these much needed reforms, I will not be able to vote for 
H.R. 2149 without an amendment. The Ocean Shipping Reform Act allows 
conferences of carriers to enter into secret contracts and still enjoy 
full immunity from U.S. antitrust laws. These secret contracts will 
only accelerate the trend in the maritime industry toward 
consolidation. With carriers operating free from antitrust laws, there 
would be no safeguards to prevent predatory activity. Small consumers, 
manufacturers, and ports will have no recourse

[[Page H4341]]

from secret deals that discriminate against them.
  Allowing secret, discriminatory contracts is a fundamental flaw of 
H.R. 2149, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. I urge my colleagues to adopt 
the amendment which would preserve the requirement that carriers file 
their rates. Only with the amendment will the Ocean Shipping Reform Act 
produce a stronger maritime industry capable of meeting the Nation's 
future ocean transportation needs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Ocean Shipping Reform Act only 
and only if the Oberstar amendment passes this afternoon.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, perhaps my good friend from Illinois misspoke, because 
when he said that the so-called secret contracts will have antitrust 
immunity, that simply is not the case. The antitrust immunity applies 
only to the published rates.
  The antitrust immunity does not apply to the private contracts, the 
so-called secret contracts which the gentleman refers to. I wish to 
emphasize that very, very clearly. The antitrust immunity does not 
apply to the private contracts entered into, the same private contracts 
that already exist for every other mode of transportationin America.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my opposition to H.R. 2149 and my 
strong support for the Oberstar amendment.
  H.R. 2149, as it now stands, would benefit a small group of large 
shippers and a handful of the largest ports at the expense of everyone 
else. The committee bill would be a serious threat for consumers, for 
small shippers, and for all but the largest ports.
  In Philadelphia, a minimum of 11,000 people owe their jobs to port 
activity. H.R. 2149 could put those 11,000 jobs at serious risk because 
shipping activity could be funneled through a few large ports.
  Just a few years ago, we saw the power of the ocean carrier cartels 
when the Northern Europe-United States Conference dropped its 
designation of Philadelphia as a port of call. Since then, the carrier 
conferences have become larger and even more powerful.
  H.R. 2149 would provide a powerful new launching pad for 
concentration of the carrier industry, of the shipping industry, and of 
the ports of this Nation. One of the major backers of this bill has 
said that the 100 public ports that exist today in this country will be 
reduced to four. That concentration will come at the cost of tens of 
thousands of jobs in every part of this country.
  It is the threat of the industry and port concentration that would be 
promoted by this bill that has prompted the strong opposition that has 
surfaced during the past 8 months.
  We have heard from the ports, from labor, and from small shippers 
about the damage this bill could cause.
  To make this bill acceptable, we must eliminate the cloak of secrecy 
that H.R. 2149 would cast over freight carrier contracts. The Oberstar 
amendment would lift that veil of secrecy to protect consumers, small 
shippers, and smaller ports from potentially serious damage that could 
take place if the confidentiailiy provision is allowed to stand.
  If the Oberstar amendment is not adopted, the end result of this bill 
will be fewer shippers, fewer carriers, and fewer ports. This Congress 
should not be creating a special veil of secrecy for ocean shipping 
that will put thousands of people out of work.
  This bill is a step backward from the open and public disclosure of 
contract terms that has existed since the Ocean Shipping Act of 1984. 
H.R. 2149 continues the special antitrust exemption for ocean carrier 
conferences but it also allows the deals made by these conferences to 
be secret.
  The new secrecy authority will make these conferences into cartels 
that will become more and more powerful. Eventually, there will be no 
competition. That means fewer jobs.
  It is also crucial that an independent regulatory board, such as the 
Surface Transportation Board in the Department of Transportation, take 
over the remaining oversight functions of the Federal Maritime 
Commission. The Oberstar amendment would eliminate the FMC and transfer 
its functions to the Surface Transportation Board.
  Without the Oberstar amendment, H.R. 2149 is anticonsumer, 
antiworker, and will benefit only a handful of major ports. Without the 
Oberstar amendment, H.R. 2149 is a job killer that should not be 
approved.
  I am also concerned about other issues that have been raised by the 
American Association of Port Authorities, another group which opposes 
the bill. AAPA has objected to the provisions on tariff filing and on 
steamship alliances. I hope those issues can be resolved so the ports 
can support the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Oberstar amendment and defeat of 
the bill unless the Oberstar amendment is adopted.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises that the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster] has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining and the right to close, and 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in the course of this debate, much has been made of who 
said what and when. At the very outset of this whole process, I made it 
very clear to my good friend, the chairman of our committee, that as we 
moved the bill through subcommittee and full committee, I supported the 
bill.
  I felt, however, there should have been hearings on the introduced 
bill before we went to markup, but there was a willingness to work 
together to try to work out differences to come to an agreement. When 
we came to markup, I said very clearly, ``I support the legislation 
being considered, as do my fellow Democrats on the committee.'' I 
thought that we had gone through a process whereby all considerations 
had been given an opportunity to be brought to bear on the legislation.

                              {time}  1630

  The bill that the committee was about to consider was very similar, I 
said, to legislation I introduced earlier in the year, but that bill 
that I introduced following the concept hearings the committee held 
never allowed for secret contracts. That was not something, it was not 
a provision, that I supported. We had come to an agreement, however, 
that I thought was about as far as we could go at that point.
  Mr. Chairman, time passed 8 months went on, and agreements should 
never stand in the way of good public policy. If people have objection 
to legislation, people feel their interests are being hurt, if ports 
feel that they are going to be disadvantaged, if labor feels it is 
going to be disadvantaged, we have a right to hear their concerns, and 
we have a responsibility to react to those concerns. That is what I am 
doing in proposing my amendment.
  This is not some act of disloyalty, as it seems to be portrayed in 
the course of this general debate. This is, however, a high act of 
public responsibility and public policy. Openly discussed, I did not 
conceal from my friends on the Republican side that there were concerns 
raised by valid interests that need to be heard. I was very open about 
it, told my colleagues directly what needed to be done and gave them an 
opportunity to look at this legislation, at this amendment, rise 
objections if they have them. We understood that they could not 
probably come to an agreement on it and that this is the place to take 
that language to the floor and have a vote on it, and we will have a 
vote.
  Mr. Chairman, but it is done in the full spirit of openness and of 
respecting interests that people have and concerns in this open public 
policy process. There is no hidden agenda on my part or on the part of 
any of us on this side. We have differences; let us have them out. But 
let us not make them personal. I never have and I do not like that way 
of proceeding. We have differences on public policy issues; let us 
debate them out on their merits, and that is what we are going to do in 
a few minutes.

[[Page H4342]]

  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to strongly concur with the last statement my 
good friend made because, the minute he realized that there was going 
to be an effort on the part of labor to try to change this legislation, 
in the spirit of openness and fairness he came to me immediately, and 
he told me that there was this problem developing. So I salute him, and 
I concur with what he said in the spirit of openness with which we have 
always worked.
  I would like to review the facts, however, as how this has developed 
and the whole question of this last-minute abrogation, I must call it, 
of an agreement from my perspective. Last June 28 we put out a 
bipartisan press release, both sides of the aisle, in our committee, 
and we listed the seven key elements of the compromise and the private 
contracts. The confidential contracts were one of the seven elements.
  Mr. Chairman, from June 28 to August 1 and 2, the markups, we heard 
nothing about opposition. On August 1 and 2 we marked up the bill; we 
heard no opposition to this issue. On April 2, this year, less than a 
month ago, my good friend, the ranking member of the committee, was 
still supporting the private contracts in speeches to the ports.

  Indeed, and I again emphasize what my good friend said because I 
think it is so relevant, he said our committee has reported the Ocean 
Shipping Act to the House and proposed that we deregulate the ocean 
transportation industry in ways that are similar to what we have 
already done in trucking and rail and airline industries. We would 
eliminate tariff filings and allow for confidential service contracts. 
My good friend went on to say, ``I know that some ports may have 
concerns about the possible impact of this bill, but I would hope that 
you would look at this as an opportunity to increase your business and 
not as a threat to your existence.'' Then he further went on to say, 
``Shippers and consumers will pay less for their products, the ports 
will be handling more cargoes, and the ocean carriers will have a more 
competitive operating environment.''.
  So after all these months, 10 months after we had a compromise, a 
bipartisan agreement, no problem. Finally, a few days ago something 
changed, and I understand that, and we all know what changed, and I 
respect that. But really those are the facts.
  Mr. Chairman, it should be emphasized once again that the compromise 
that was agreed to was that the carriers would swallow hard and accept 
private contracts for the shippers. The shippers would swallow hard and 
accept keeping antitrust immunity which the carriers wanted, and indeed 
I emphasize again, lest there be no misunderstanding. With regard to 
the private contracts the antitrust immunity does not apply. The 
antitrust immunity applies only to the published tariff rates.
  Further, I would ask rhetorically to my good friends on the other 
side of the aisle, do they want to eliminate the private contracts that 
we gave to rail in the Staggers act? I have heard nobody proposing to 
do that. Do they want to eliminate the private contracts which exist in 
the trucking industry? I have heard nobody propose that. Do they want 
to eliminate the private contracts that exist in the aviation industry? 
I have heard nobody propose that.
  Yes, every other mode of transportation in America has the ability to 
enter into private contracts between the shipper and the carrier, and 
we are simply doing here today what every other mode of transportation 
already has in America.
  Now my friends can try to characterize it as secret agreements. These 
are private agreements which every other mode has, and for that reason 
I think that we should treat the ocean carriers in exactly the same 
way. Indeed, let us not destroy this compromise, let us not gut this 
bill. Let us pass the bill as it was overwhelmingly passed on a 
bipartisan basis out of our committee and, until last Thursday evening, 
had the strong bipartisan support of virtually every member of the 
committee on both sides of the aisle.
  For all those reasons I would urge my colleagues to reject the 
Oberstar amendment when it comes and to support the bill so we can get 
on with real regulatory reform in the transportation industry.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to applaud the 
chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, 
Howard Coble, for all the hard work he and his staff did on this bill.
  I was the ranking member of the subcommittee when the bill was 
approved. We worked very closely with shippers, carriers, and maritime 
labor. The bill approved by the committee last August had the strong 
support of ocean shippers and carriers. At the time, maritime labor 
indicated that they were not opposed to the bill, although they did not 
expressly support it.
  It has been 9 months since the bill was approved by the committee. 
Members of Congress and our friends in maritime labor have had time to 
digest the bill and fully understand every section. After this normal 
process of reflection, one legitimate concern has arisen over the issue 
of secret contracts.
  H.R. 2149 amends existing law by repealing the requirement that the 
essential terms of contracts between ocean carriers and shippers be 
disclosed to the public. On the surface, this seems to make common 
sense--especially when one looks at the manner in which the rail and 
highway shipping industries operate. But unlike the rail and highway 
industries, in ocean shipping, most of the carriers are part of 
conferences that are immune from U.S. antitrust laws.
  The combination of antitrust immunity and secret contracts will 
greatly compromise the delicate competitive balance between ocean 
carriers and shippers. The only way to fully protect small carriers and 
shippers, as well as small- to mid-size ports, is to preserve the 
requirements in existing law for disclosure of the essential terms of 
ocean shipping contracts.
  All the Oberstar amendment does is retain the disclosure requirement. 
I support the Oberstar amendment. Far from gutting the bill, the 
Oberstar amendment retains all of the key provisions in H.R. 2149. 
These include:
  Elimination of the Federal Maritime Commission; elimination of tariff 
filing; elimination of restrictions on the contents of contracts 
between shippers and carriers; repeal of current provision of law that 
allowed carrier conferences to bar their members from making 
individual, lower cost, ocean transportation contracts with shippers; 
reduction of the amount of notice a carrier must give a conference 
before it offers lower contract rate from 10 days to 3 days.
  Most significantly, the Oberstar amendment retains key language I had 
included in the bill to strengthen the ability of the United States to 
combat unfair, predatory, and anticompetitive trade practices by 
foreign governments and carriers.
  While I support the elimination of the FMC, I want to applaud the FMC 
for the excellent job it did over the years to protect U.S. ocean 
shippers and carriers from unfair and illegal foreign trade practices. 
The FMC rarely took action against a foreign government or a foreign 
carrier. It didn't have to. Merely the threat of FMC sanctions was 
enough to keep foreign governments and foreign carriers in line.
  The Traficant language included in the bill and the Oberstar 
amendment will ensure that the United States retains the ability to 
take decisive action against foreign governments and carriers that 
engage in unfair trade practices. In fact, the Traficant language 
actually strengthens the hand of the United States.
  The bottom line: The Oberstar amendment will not gut the bill. I urge 
Members to support the Oberstar amendment, and I applaud the 
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Oberstar, for bringing the amendment 
forward.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2149, the 
Ocean Shipping Act of 1995, in its present form and in favor of the 
Oberstar amendment that would remove some of the onerous provisions in 
this legislation that are harmful to domestic offshore areas such as 
Guam.
  Open and fair competition in the shipping industry is good. But, we 
do not have open and fair competition in the domestic offshore trades. 
Instead, because of the Jones Act and cargo preference laws, we have 
captive markets like Guam that are gouged by carriers with high 
shipping rates due to lack of competition. Because there is no 
effective competition in the offshore trades, we need effective 
regulation, or completely open markets--it seems that we are moving in 
the direction of having the worst of both worlds. To allow the carriers 
to have complete freedom to set secret rates without public disclosure 
would only exacerbate the exploitation of the domestic offshore markets 
and the raiding of consumers' wallets on Guam. I opposed certain 
provisions of the ICC Termination Act for this reason.
  This same basic infirmity is now being proposed for the foreign 
commerce of the United

[[Page H4343]]

States in H.R. 2149. Most troubling are provisions in H.R. 2149 that 
would allow conferences to negotiate secret rate deals with shippers. 
The effect on the shipping industry is potentially devastating. By 
allowing secret contracts, major shippers and major ports may be able 
to steer business away from smaller shippers and ports. Any oversight 
by the Department of Transportation, once the Federal Maritime 
Commission is eliminated, would be meaningless if critical information 
about the carriers' trade practices are withheld.
  I am concerned about the effect of our maritime policies on captive 
markets such as Guam and have voiced those concerns during the debate 
on the ICC Termination Act. I have also urged the Department of 
Transportation to consider the domestic offshore trades, the impact on 
individual areas such as Guam, and the potential for abuse of carriers' 
rate-making authority in exercising its oversight responsibilities. 
These considerations apply with equal force to the foreign commerce of 
our Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Oberstar amendment to retain some 
accountability by DOT over the carriers.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill H.R. 2149, 
so as to eliminate the regulation by the Federal Maritime Commission 
[FMC] of manufactured and processed goods including many agricultural 
food and fiber products.
  As I understand it, existing maritime law permits ocean carriers to 
organize into consortiums, known in the trade as shipping conferences 
that may collectively fix their rates, set sailing schedules, and make 
other business arrangements. I am informed that the United States is 
the only country that maintains a government agency--FMC--to regulate 
ocean shipping.
  The apparent primary purpose of FMC is to collect and enforce 
thousands of transportation rates and prices--tariffs--and business 
contracts filed by ocean carriers and make them publicly available.
  The Transportation Committee states that a report prepared by the 
Department of Agriculture in 1993 found that a ``cartel premium'' 
attributable to conference market power amounts to some 18 percent of 
the cost of ocean transportation of manufactured or processed 
agricultural exports.
  The Committee on Agriculture for a number of years has enacted 
legislation urging the Secretary of Agriculture to expand on value-
added--high value--processed products so that not only will the United 
States enhance its dollar value and volume of agricultural exports but 
also enhance rural development by giving jobs to our domestic work 
force by processing and adding value to our raw commodities and compete 
in foreign markets. However, to be competitive we need to diminish or 
eliminate that 18-percent cost of exporting U.S. value-added products 
and keep that advantage here in the United States to help our domestic 
farmers, agricultural industries and laborers.
  The following groups, among about 40 or more, that support this bill 
include American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest and Paper 
Association, American Frozen Food Institute, American Meat Institute, 
Calcat Ltd., Con Agra, Inc., Florida Citrus Packers, National Broiler 
Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Sun Diamond Growers of 
California, and Weyerhaeuser Co.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of the Oberstar amendment to H.R. 2149, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. 
This amendment, simply put, requires the public disclosure of the 
essential terms of contracts that could be secret and/or 
discriminatory. The authority to make secret contracts is particularly 
inappropriate when we bear in mind that under H.R. 2149 carriers, 
consortia of carriers, and their conferences will operate under 
antitrust immunity.
  Mr. Chairman, the combination of antitrust immunity and secret 
agreements undercuts the Shipping Act of 1984 which achieved a delicate 
balance between the competing interests of the ocean carrier and the 
shipper. Under the 1984 act, carriers were allowed to continue having 
conferences, but the essential terms of the contracts they entered into 
with shippers had to be publicly disclosed to ensure that they were not 
discriminating against shippers, ports, manufacturers, and freight 
forwarders. Without this amendment, Mr. Chairman, this balance will be 
destroyed. Carriers will be allowed to enter into confidential ocean 
transportation contracts and no one, not even the Federal Government, 
will know when these carriers or cartels choose to harm our ports or 
industries.
  Mr. Chairman, with the Oberstar amendment, significant but fair 
deregulation will still occur. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment that will ensure that true marketplace forces will be able to 
provide safeguards to protect our consumers, manufacturers, and ports 
from secret deals that discriminate against them.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, last year, I was a Chair of the 
Budget Committee working group looking at this part of the budget. We 
recommended the elimination of the Federal Maritime Commission. I'm 
glad to support this bill to do that today.
  The Federal Maritime Commission, established in 1961, is charged with 
maintaining a cartel formed by the steamship lines to increase ocean 
transportation rates above market levels. The FMC also enforces an 
extraordinarily burdensome tariff filing scheme and restricts the 
negotiation of contracts for the transportation of goods. This burdens 
out exporters and contributes to our negative balance of trade. Dr. 
Alan Furgeson an economist under contract with the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, calculated that FMC regulations and restrictions increase 
transportation costs by an average of 18 percent above the market 
level. He also estimated that U.S. exporters lose hundreds of millions 
of dollars of sales due to these additional transport costs. The bottom 
line is that the FMC is costing Americans jobs by rendering U.S. 
products less cost-competitive. This proposal would deregulate Federal 
maritime policy, terminate the Commission, and transfer critical 
functions to the Department of Transportation.
  It deserves our support.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired. Before 
consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to consider 
the amendment printed in part 1 of House Report 104-544, if offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] or his designee. That 
amendment shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall 
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.
  If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as an original bill by title, and the first section and each 
title shall be considered read.
  If offered, the amendment printed in part 2 of the report shall be 
considered read, may amend portions of the bill not yet read for 
amendment, shall not be subject to amendment, except for pro forma 
amendments, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure I understand that the 
gentleman from Minnesota will not be limited in time on his amendment, 
which it is our intent that he not be limited; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. In response to the question, the gentleman is correct.


                    amendment offered by mr. shuster

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shuster: Page 3, line 3, strike 
     ``rates;'' and insert ``rates, charges, classifications, 
     rules, and practices;''.
       Page 3, line 19, strike ``or'' and insert ``and''.
       Page 10, line 17, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     the final period.
       Page 10, after line 17, insert the following:
       ``(4) The requirements and prohibitions concerning 
     contracting by conferences contained in sections 5(b) (9) and 
     (10) of this Act shall also apply to any agreement among one 
     or more ocean common carriers that is filed under section 
     5(a) of this Act.''.
       Page 10, line 23, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       Page 14, after line 19, insert the following:
       (A) by striking subsection (c)(1) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) boycott, take any concerted action resulting in an 
     unreasonable refusal to deal, or implement a policy or 
     practice that results in an unreasonable refusal to deal;'';
       Page 14, line 20, strike ``(A)'' and insert ``(B)''.
       Page 14, line 23, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       Page 14, line 25, insert ``and'' at the end.
       Page 15, line 3, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.

[[Page H4344]]

       Page 15, strike lines 4 through 9.
       Page 19, strike lines 4 through 25 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) by striking subsections (a) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) License.--No person in the United States may act as 
     an ocean freight forwarder unless that person holds a license 
     issued by the Commission. The Commission shall issue a 
     forwarder's license to any person that the Commission 
     determines to be qualified by experience and character to 
     render forwarding services.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Financial Responsibility.--
       ``(1) No person may act as an ocean freight forwarder 
     unless that person furnishes a bond, proof of insurance, or 
     other surety in a form and amount determined by the 
     Commission to insure financial responsibility that is issued 
     by a surety company found acceptable by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury.
       ``(2) A bond, insurance, or other surety obtained pursuant 
     to this section shall be available to pay any judgment for 
     damages against an ocean freight forwarder arising from its 
     transportation-related activities under this Act or order for 
     reparation issued pursuant to section 11 or 14 of this Act.
       ``(3) An ocean freight forwarder not domiciled in the 
     United States shall designate a resident agent in the United 
     States for receipt of service of judicial and administrative 
     process, including subpoenas.'';
       (4) in subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (2) of 
     this section, by striking ``a bond in accordance with 
     subsection (a)(2)'' and inserting ``a bond, proof of 
     insurance, or other surety in accordance with subsection 
     (b)(1)''; and
       (5) in subsection (e), as redesignated by paragraph (2) of 
     this section--
       (A) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraph 
     (4) as paragraph (3); and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) No conference or group of 2 or more ocean common 
     carriers in the foreign commerce of the United States that is 
     authorized to agree upon the level of compensation paid to an 
     ocean freight forwarder, as defined in section 3(18)(A) of 
     this Act, may--
       ``(A) deny to any member of the conference or group the 
     right, upon notice of not more than 3 business days, to take 
     independent action on any level of compensation paid to an 
     ocean freight forwarder; or
       ``(B) agree to limit the payment of compensation to an 
     ocean freight forwarder, as defined in section 3(18)(A) of 
     this Act, to less than 1.25 percent of the aggregate of all 
     rates and charges which are applicable under a common 
     schedule of transportation rates provided under section 8(a) 
     of this Act, and which are assessed against the cargo on 
     which the forwarding services are provided.''.
       Page 24, line 15, strike ``United States carriers'' and 
     insert ``one or more ocean common carriers''.
       Page 24, strike lines 19 through 24 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(h)(1) The Secretary shall issue regulations by June 1, 
     1997, that prescribe procedures and requirements governing 
     the submission of price and other information necessary to 
     enable the Secretary to determine under subsection (g) 
     whether prices charged by carriers are unfair, predatory, or 
     anticompetitive.
       ``(2)(A) If information provided to the Secretary under 
     this subsection does not result in a finding by the Secretary 
     of a violation of this section or enforcement action by the 
     Secretary, the information may not be made public and shall 
     be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code, except for purposes of an administrative 
     or judicial action or proceeding.
       ``(B) This paragraph does not prohibit disclosure to either 
     House of the Congress or to a duly authorized committee or 
     subcommittee of the Congress.''.
       Page 25, after line 10, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 203. REPORT BY THE SECRETARY.

       ``The Secretary shall report to the Congress by January 1, 
     1998, and annually thereafter, on--
       ``(1) actions taken by the Secretary under the Foreign 
     Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 App. U.S.C. 1710a) and 
     section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1708); 
     and
       ``(2) the effect on United States maritime employment of 
     laws, rules, regulations, policies, or practice of foreign 
     governments, and any practices of foreign carriers or other 
     persons providing maritime or maritime-related services in a 
     foreign country, that adversely affect the operations of 
     United States carriers in United States oceanborne trade.''
       Page 25, strike line 14 and all that follows through line 4 
     on page 26 and insert the following:

     SEC. 301. AGENCY TERMINATION.

       (a) In General.--On September 30, 1997, the Federal 
     Maritime Commission shall terminate and all remaining 
     functions, powers, and duties of the Federal Maritime 
     Commission shall be transferred to the Secretary of 
     Transportation.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997.--
     There is authorized to be appropriated to the Federal 
     Maritime Commission, $19,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster] and a Member opposed each will be recognized for 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment, contains amendments to 
H.R. 2149 as reported, clarifies the definition of a conference, 
extends the prohibition against conference interfering with 
contracting, terminates Federal Maritime Commission at the end of 
fiscal 1997. I believe this amendment is not controversial, and I would 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we are not opposed to the amendment. 
Therefore, we claim no time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       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 ``Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 
     1995''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1? If not the Clerk 
will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:
                     TITLE I--OCEAN SHIPPING REFORM

     SEC. 101. PURPOSES.

       Section 2 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1701) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding a new paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) to permit carriers and shippers to develop 
     transportation arrangements to meet their specific needs.''.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 3 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1702) 
     is amended--
       (1) effective on January 1, 1997--
       (A) by striking paragraph (9); and
       (B) by redesignating the remaining paragraphs accordingly;
       (2) effective on June 1, 1997--
       (A) by striking paragraph (4);
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking ``a common tariff;'' and 
     inserting ``a common schedule of transportation rates;'';
       (C) by striking paragraph (10) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1) of this section);
       (D) by striking paragraph (13) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1) of this section);
       (E) by striking paragraph (16) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1) of this section);
       (F) by amending paragraph (18) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1) of this section) to read as follows:
       ``(18) `ocean freight forwarder' means a person that--
       ``(A)(i) in the United States, dispatches shipments from 
     the United States via a common carrier and books or otherwise 
     arranges space for those shipments on behalf of shippers; or
       ``(ii) processes the documentation or performs related 
     activities incident to those shipments; or
       ``(B) acts as a common carrier that does not operate the 
     vessels by which the ocean transportation is provided, and is 
     a shipper in its relationship with an ocean common 
     carrier.'';
       (G) by striking paragraph (20) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1) of this section);
       (H) in paragraph (22) (as redesignated by paragraph (1) of 
     this section)--
       (i) by striking ``or'' the second time it appears and 
     inserting a comma; and
       (ii) by striking the period and inserting ``, a shippers' 
     association, or an ocean freight forwarder that accepts 
     responsibility for payment of the ocean freight.'';
       (I) by amending paragraph (23) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1) of this section) to read as follows:
       ``(23) `shippers' association' means a group of shippers 
     that consolidates or distributes freight, on a nonprofit 
     basis for the members of the group in order to secure 
     carload, truckload, or other volume rates or ocean 
     transportation contracts.''; and
       (J) by inserting after paragraph (18) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(19) `ocean transportation contract' means a contract in 
     writing separate from the bill of lading or receipt between 1 
     or more common carriers or a conference and 1 or more 
     shippers to provide specified services under specified rates 
     and conditions.''.

     SEC. 103. AGREEMENTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ACT.

       Section 4(a) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 
     1703(a)) is amended, effective on June 1, 1997--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``non-vessel-operating 
     common carriers'' and inserting ``ocean freight forwarders''; 
     and
       (2) by amending paragraph (7) to read as follows:
       ``(7) discuss any matter related to ocean transportation 
     contracts, and enter ocean transportation contracts and 
     agreements related to those contracts.''.

[[Page H4345]]

     SEC. 104. AGREEMENTS.

       Section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1704) 
     is amended--
       (1) effective on January 1, 1997--
       (A) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``at the request of 
     any member, require an independent neutral body to police 
     fully'' and inserting ``state the provisions, if any, for the 
     policing of'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in subsection (b)(8), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(9) provide that a member of the conference may enter 
     individual and independent negotiations and may conclude 
     individual and independent service contracts under section 8 
     of this Act.'';
       (2) effective on June 1, 1997--
       (A) by amending subsection (b)(8) to read as follows:
       ``(8) provide that any member of the conference may take 
     independent action on any rate or service item agreed upon by 
     the conference for transportation provided under section 8(a) 
     of this Act upon not more than 3 business days' notice to the 
     conference, and that the conference will provide the new rate 
     or service item for use by that member, effective no later 
     than 3 business days after receipt of that notice, and by any 
     other member that notifies the conference that it elects to 
     adopt the independent rate or service item on or after its 
     effective date, in lieu of the existing conference provision 
     for that rate or service item;''; and
       (B) by adding the following new paragraph to read as 
     follows:
       ``(10) prohibit the conference from--
       ``(A) prohibiting or restricting the members of the 
     conference from engaging in individual negotiations for ocean 
     transportation contracts under section 8(b) with 1 or more 
     shippers; and
       ``(B) issuing mandatory rules or requirements affecting 
     ocean transportation contracts that may be entered by 1 or 
     more members of the conference, except that a conference may 
     require that a member of the conference disclose the 
     existence of an existing individual ocean transportation 
     contract or negotiations on an ocean transportation contract, 
     when the conference enters negotiations on an ocean 
     transportation contract with the same shipper.'';
       (C) in subsection (e), by striking ``carrier that are 
     required to be set forth in a tariff,'' and inserting 
     ``carrier,''; and
       (D) in subsection (b)(9), by striking ``service'' and 
     inserting ``ocean transportation''.

     SEC. 105. EXEMPTION FROM ANTITRUST LAWS.

       Section 7 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1706) 
     is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a)(6) to read as follows:
       ``(6) subject to section 20(e)(2) of this Act, any 
     agreement, modification, or cancellation, in effect before 
     the effective date of this Act and any tariff, rate, fare, 
     charge, classification, rule, or regulation explanatory 
     thereof implementing that agreement, modification, or 
     cancellation.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``agency'' and 
     inserting ``agency, department,''.

     SEC. 106. COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIAGE.

       (a) In General.--Effective on June 1, 1997--
       (1) section 8a of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 
     1707a) is repealed; and
       (2) section 8 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 
     1707) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 8. COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIAGE.

       ``(a) Common Carriage.--
       ``(1) A common carrier and a conference shall make 
     available a schedule of transportation rates which shall 
     include the rates, terms, and conditions for transportation 
     services not governed by an ocean transportation contract, 
     and shall provide the schedule of transportation rates, in 
     writing, upon the request of any person. A common carrier and 
     a conference may assess a reasonable charge for complying 
     with a request for a rate, term, and condition, except that 
     the charge may not exceed the cost of providing the 
     information requested.
       ``(2) A dispute between a common carrier or conference and 
     a person as to the applicability of the rates, terms, and 
     conditions for ocean transportation services shall be decided 
     in an appropriate State or Federal court of competent 
     jurisdiction, unless the parties otherwise agree.
       ``(3) A claim concerning a rate for ocean transportation 
     services which involves false billing, false classification, 
     false weighing, false report of weight, or false measurement 
     shall be decided in an appropriate State or Federal court of 
     competent jurisdiction, unless the parties otherwise agree.
       ``(b) Contract Carriage.--
       ``(1) 1 or more common carriers or a conference may enter 
     into an ocean transportation contract with 1 or more 
     shippers. A common carrier may enter into ocean 
     transportation contracts without limitations concerning the 
     number of ocean transportation contracts or the amount of 
     cargo or space involved. The status of a common carrier as an 
     ocean common carrier is not affected by the number or 
     terms of ocean transportation contracts entered.
       ``(2) A party to an ocean transportation contract entered 
     under this section shall have no duty in connection with 
     services provided under the contract other than the duties 
     specified by the terms of the contract.
       ``(3)(A) An ocean transportation contract or the 
     transportation provided under that contract may not be 
     challenged in any court on the grounds that the contract 
     violates a provision of this Act.
       ``(B) The exclusive remedy for an alleged breach of an 
     ocean transportation contract is an action in an appropriate 
     State or Federal court of competent jurisdiction, unless the 
     parties otherwise agree.''.
       (b) Confidentiality of Contracts.--Effective on January 1, 
     1998, section 8(b) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. 
     U.S.C. 1707(b)), as amended by subsection (a) of this 
     section, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) A contract entered under this section may be made on 
     a confidential basis, upon agreement of the parties. An ocean 
     common carrier that is a member of a conference agreement may 
     not be prohibited or restricted from agreeing with 1 or more 
     shippers that the parties to the contract will not disclose 
     the rates, services, terms, or conditions of that contract to 
     any other member of the agreement, to the conference, to any 
     other carrier, shipper, conference, or to any other third 
     party.''.

     SEC. 107. PROHIBITED ACTS.

       Section 10 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 
     1709) is amended--
       (1) effective on January 1, 1997, by amending subsection 
     (b)--
       (A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) except for service contracts, subject a person, 
     place, port, or shipper to unreasonable discrimination;''; 
     and
       (B) by repealing paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (8);
       (2) effective on June 1, 1997, by amending subsection (b) 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Common Carriers.--No common carrier, either alone or 
     in conjunction with any other person, directly or indirectly, 
     may--
       ``(1) except for ocean transportation contracts, subject a 
     person, place, port, or shipper to unreasonable 
     discrimination;
       ``(2) retaliate against any shipper by refusing, or 
     threatening to refuse, cargo space accommodations when 
     available, or resort to other unfair or unjustly 
     discriminatory methods because the shipper has patronized 
     another carrier or has filed a complaint, or for any other 
     reason;
       ``(3) employ any fighting ship;
       ``(4) subject any particular person, locality, class, or 
     type of shipper or description of traffic to an unreasonable 
     refusal to deal;
       ``(5) refuse to negotiate with a shippers' association;
       ``(6) knowingly and willfully accept cargo from or 
     transport cargo for the account of an ocean freight forwarder 
     that does not have a bond, insurance, or other surety as 
     required by section 19;
       ``(7) knowingly and willfully enter into an ocean 
     transportation contract with an ocean freight forwarder or in 
     which an ocean freight forwarder is listed as an affiliate 
     that does not have a bond, insurance, or other surety as 
     required by section 19; or
       ``(8)(A) knowingly disclose, offer, solicit, or receive any 
     information concerning the nature, kind, quantity, 
     destination, consignee, or routing of any property tendered 
     or delivered to a common carrier without the consent of the 
     shipper or consignee if that information--
       ``(i) may be used to the detriment or prejudice of the 
     shipper or consignee;
       ``(ii) may improperly disclose its business transaction to 
     a competitor; or
       ``(iii) may be used to the detriment or prejudice of any 
     common carrier;

     except that nothing in paragraph (8) shall be construed to 
     prevent providing the information, in response to legal 
     process, to the United States, or to an independent neutral 
     body operating within the scope of its authority to fulfill 
     the policing obligations of the parties to an agreement 
     effective under this Act. Nor shall it be prohibited for any 
     ocean common carrier that is a party to a conference 
     agreement approved under this Act, or any receiver, trustee, 
     lessee, agent, or employee of that carrier, or any other 
     person authorized by that carrier to receive information, to 
     give information to the conference or any person, firm, 
     corporation, or agency designated by the conference or to 
     prevent the conference or its designee from soliciting or 
     receiving information for the purpose of determining whether 
     a shipper or consignee has breached an agreement with a 
     conference or for the purpose of determining whether a member 
     of the conference has breached the conference agreement or 
     for the purpose of compiling statistics of cargo movement, 
     but the use of that information for any other purpose 
     prohibited by this Act or any other Act is prohibited; and
       ``(B) after December 31, 1997, the rates, services, terms, 
     and conditions of an ocean transportation contract may not be 
     disclosed under this paragraph if the contract has been made 
     on a confidential basis under section 8(b) of this Act.

     The exclusive remedy for a disclosure under this paragraph 
     shall be an action for breach of contract as provided in 
     section 8(b)(3) of this Act.'';
       (3) effective on June 1, 1997--
       (A) in subsection (c)(5), by inserting ``as defined in 
     section 3(14)(A) of this Act'' after ``freight forwarder''; 
     and
       (B) in subsection (c)(6), by striking ``a service 
     contract.'' and inserting ``an ocean transportation 
     contract.'';
       (4) effective on June 1, 1997, in subsection (d)(3), by 
     striking ``(b) (11), (12), and (16)'' and inserting ``(b) 
     (1), (4), and (8)''; and

[[Page H4346]]

       (5) effective on June 1, 1997, by adding a new subsection 
     (f) to read as follows:
       ``(f) Conference Action.--No conference may subject a 
     person, place, port, class or type of shipper, or ocean 
     freight forwarder, to unjust or unreasonable ocean contract 
     provisions.''.

     SEC. 108. REPARATIONS.

       Effective June 1, 1997, section 11(g) of the Shipping Act 
     of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1710(g)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or counter-complainant'' after 
     ``complainant'' the second time it appears;
       (2) by striking ``10(b) (5) or (7)'' and inserting ``10(b) 
     (2) or (3)''; and
       (3) by striking the last sentence.

     SEC. 109. FOREIGN LAWS AND PRACTICES.

       Section 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 
     (46 App. U.S.C. 1710a) is amended, effective on June 1, 
     1997--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``non-vessel-operating common carrier,''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting ``ocean freight forwarder,'' after ``ocean 
     common carrier,'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(4), by striking ``non-vessel-
     operating common carrier operations,'';
       (3) in subsection (e)(1), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     all that follows through subparagraph (D) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) suspension, in whole or in part, of the right of an 
     ocean common carrier to operate under any agreement filed 
     with the Secretary, including agreements authorizing 
     preferential treatment at terminals, preferential terminal 
     leases, space chartering, or pooling of cargo or revenues 
     with other ocean common carriers; and
       ``(C) a fee, not to exceed $1,000,000 per voyage.''; and
       (4) in subsection (h), by striking ``section 13(b)(5) of 
     the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1712(b)(5))'' and 
     inserting ``section 13(b)(2) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 
     App. U.S.C. 1712(b)(2))''.

     SEC. 110. PENALTIES.

       Section 13 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 
     1712) is amended, effective on June 1, 1997--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (3) and redesignating 
     paragraphs (2), (4), (5), and (6) in order as paragraphs (1), 
     (2), (3), and (4);
       (B) by striking paragraph (1), as so redesignated, and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) If the Secretary finds, after notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing, that a common carrier has failed 
     to supply information ordered to be produced or compelled by 
     subpoena under section 1711 of this Act, the Secretary may 
     request that the Secretary of the Treasury refuse or revoke 
     any clearance required for a vessel operated by that common 
     carrier. Upon request by the Secretary, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall, with respect to the vessel concerned, refuse 
     or revoke any clearance required by section 4197 of the 
     Revised Statutes of the United States (46 App. U.S.C. 91).''; 
     and
       (C) in paragraph (3), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``finds appropriate,'' and all that follows through the end 
     of the paragraph and inserting ``finds appropriate including 
     the imposition of the penalties authorized under paragraph 
     (2).'';
       (2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``section 10 (a)(1), 
     (b)(1), or (b)(4)'' and inserting ``section 10(a)(1)''.

     SEC. 111. REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 15 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 
     App. U.S.C. 1714) is amended, effective on January 1, 1997--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``and 
     certificates'';
       (2) by striking ``(a) Reports.--''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (b).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) is amended in the first section in the 
     table of contents by amending the item relating to section 15 
     to read as follows:

``Sec. 15. Reports.''.

     SEC. 112. REGULATIONS.

       Section 17 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 
     1716) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a)''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b).''.

     SEC. 113. REPEAL.

       Section 18 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 
     1717) is repealed.

     SEC. 114. OCEAN FREIGHT FORWARDERS.

       Section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 
     1718) is amended, effective on June 1, 1997--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``in the United 
     States'' after ``person'' the first time it appears;
       (2) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``a bond'' and 
     inserting ``a bond, proof of insurance, or other surety'';
       (3) by adding after subsection (a)(2) the following:

     ``A bond, insurance, or other surety obtained pursuant to 
     this section shall be available to pay any judgment for 
     damages against an ocean freight forwarder arising from its 
     transportation-related activities under this Act or order for 
     reparation issued pursuant to section 11 or 14 of this Act. 
     An ocean freight forwarder not domiciled in the United States 
     shall designate a resident agent in the United States for 
     receipt of service of judicial and administrative process, 
     including subpoenas.'';
       (4) in subsection (b), by striking ``a bond'' and inserting 
     ``a bond, proof of insurance, or other surety''; and
       (5) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3) and 
     redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).''.

     SEC. 115. EFFECTS ON CERTAIN AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS.

       Section 20(e) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 
     1719) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Savings Provisions.--
       ``(1) Each service contract entered into by a shipper and 
     an ocean common carrier or conference before the date of the 
     enactment of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1995 may remain 
     in full force and effect according to its terms.
       ``(2) This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 
     not affect any suit--
       ``(A) filed before the date of the enactment of the Ocean 
     Shipping Reform Act of 1995;
       ``(B) with respect to claims arising out of conduct engaged 
     in before the date of the enactment of the Ocean Shipping 
     Reform Act of 1995, filed within 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1995;
       ``(C) with respect to claims arising out of conduct engaged 
     in after the date of the enactment of the Ocean Shipping 
     Reform Act of 1995 but before January 1, 1997, pertaining to 
     a violation of section 10(b) (1), (2), (3), (4), or (8), as 
     in effect before January 1, 1997, filed by June 1, 1997;
       ``(D) with respect to claims pertaining to the failure of a 
     common carrier or conference to file its tariffs or service 
     contracts in accordance with this Act in the period beginning 
     January 1, 1997, and ending June 1, 1997, filed by December 
     31, 1997; or
       ``(E) with respect to claims arising out of conduct engaged 
     in on or after the date of the enactment of the Ocean 
     Shipping Reform Act of 1995 but before June 1, 1997, filed by 
     December 31, 1997.''.

     SEC. 116. REPEAL.

       Section 23 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 
     1721) is repealed, effective on June 1, 1997.

     SEC. 117. MARINE TERMINAL OPERATOR SCHEDULES.

       (a) In General.--The Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 
     1701 et seq.) is amended, effective on June 1, 1997, by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 24. MARINE TERMINAL OPERATOR SCHEDULES.

       ``A marine terminal operator shall make available to the 
     public a schedule of rates, regulations, and practices, 
     including limitations of liability, pertaining to receiving, 
     delivering, handling, or storing property at its marine 
     terminal. The schedule shall be enforceable as an implied 
     contract, without proof of actual knowledge of its 
     provisions, for any activity by the marine terminal operator 
     that is taken to--
       ``(1) efficiently transfer property between transportation 
     modes;
       ``(2) protect property from damage or loss;
       ``(3) comply with any governmental requirement; or
       ``(4) store property in excess of the terms of any other 
     contract or agreement, if any, entered into by the marine 
     terminal operator.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) is amended in the first section in the 
     table of contents by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 24. Marine terminal operator schedules.''.


                   amendment offered by mr. oberstar

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar: Page 10, line 23, strike 
     ``(5)'' and insert ``(5)(A)''.
       Page 11, line 7, strike the closing quotation marks and the 
     final period.
       Page 11, after line 7, insert the following:
       ``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the essential terms 
     of a contract entered into under this section shall be made 
     publicly available electronically in a manner prescribed by 
     the Commission. This subparagraph does not apply to service 
     contracts dealing with bulk cargo, forest products, recycled 
     metal scrap, waste paper, or paper waste.
       ``(C) For purpose of subparagraph (B), the essential terms 
     of a contract shall include--
       ``(i) the origin and destination port ranges in the case of 
     port-to-port movements, and the original and destination 
     geographic areas in the case of through intermodal movements;
       ``(ii) the commodity or commodities involved;
       ``(iii) the minimum volume;
       ``(iv) the line-haul rate;
       ``(v) the duration;
       ``(vi) service commitments; and
       ``(vii) the liquidated damages for nonperformance, if 
     any.''.
       Page 14, line 11, insert ``except as provided by section 
     8(b)(4)(B),'' after ``(B)''.
       At the end of section 301(a) of the bill insert the 
     following:

     The Secretary of Transportation shall delegate such 
     functions, powers, and duties to the Surface Transportation 
     Board.

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
proceed for an additional 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?

[[Page H4347]]

  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] is 
recognized for a total of 10 minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires that the 
essential terms of ocean transportation contracts be disclosed to the 
public. The amendment transfers, in addition, the remaining functions 
of the Federal Maritime Commission to the Surface Transportation Board 
within the Department of Transportation rather than to the secretary to 
ensure that investigations and decisions about ocean shipping are done 
in an unbiased and nonpolitical manner. Those are the only changes my 
amendment makes to the bill.
  In evaluating the request of secret contracts, we have to remember 
that international shipping operates in a very different environment 
than any other mode in our domestic transportation industry. Over 85 
percent of the containerized shipments in and out of our ports go on 
foreign-flagged ships.
  Most of this cargo is transported on ships operated under a 
conference or a cartel agreement. Many foreign carriers have many 
agendas. Some are controlled by their governments, some are vertically 
integrated with manufacturing companies, some are motivated by their 
brand of nationalism, some will do whatever necessary to drive their 
competitors out of the marketplace.
  Into such a complex system will this bill allow secret contracts. I 
do not think it is in the interest of our ports, our manufacturers, 
U.S. consumers, or the Nation to allow secret contracts negotiated 
behind closed doors to determine the fate of our international trade. 
There have been no hearings on this legislation in our committee. No 
testimony was received on the impact of that provision of the bill. 
Potential opponents were not given an opportunity to voice their 
concerns about it in open hearings. However, the Senate's hearing on an 
identical bill raised a number of problems about this particular issue 
of secret contracts.
  Mr. Chairman, the basis of this bill is to promote competition, but 
it will result in less competition. With secret contracts, rates likely 
will fall below levels that provide an adequate return on assets or 
investments. I quoted earlier Mr. Clancy, President and CEO of Sealand 
Services, one of the world's largest ocean carriers and a major 
supporter of this bill.

                              {time}  1645

  He sees the result of this bill: that in a few years, a few giant 
super shipping consortia with global reach will control 85 to 90 
percent of the world's container ships. There will be one cartel in the 
Atlantic, one in the Pacific, and one in the Asia-Europe trade. He 
believes it will be the demise of the niche carrier, of the feeder 
line, of the North-South shipping lines between North and South 
America. The types of carriers he believes will disappear are carriers 
such as Crowley Maritime and Tropical Shipping. Secret agreements will 
be the major weapon megacarriers are going to use to achieve their 
goals of consolidating power in the shipping industry.
  This provision will allow large companies to offer lower rates to 
larger shippers, and if smaller shippers and carriers are unaware of 
the deals, they are going to find it difficult to compete. The end 
result will be exactly what Mr. Clancy predicts: the demise of niche 
carriers, feeder lines, and North-South lines.
  Let us look at the impact on small- and medium-sized shippers and on 
manufacturers and retailers. With secret contracts it will be virtually 
impossible to enforce any of the prohibitions in the bill. For example, 
under the act, a carrier or a group of carriers may not retaliate 
against any shipper who has patronized another carrier or filed a 
complaint. How will anyone be able to tell if there has been 
retaliation or discrimination if all contracts are going to be kept 
confidential? With the secret contracts, small- and medium-sized 
shippers will likely pay more, not less, in the short run and the rates 
they pay will increase even more in the long run.
  Everyone acknowledges that confidential contracts will lower the 
rates paid by the large shippers, of course. But 70 percent of the 
carriers' costs are fixed. Who is going to make up the difference when 
the large shippers get the rate breaks? Obviously, the ones who are 
going to make up the differences are going to be the small- and medium-
sized shippers.
  If Mr. Clancy's plans succeed and the cartels controlled 85 to 90 
percent of the world's shipping, then we are going to see increased use 
of secret contracts from large shippers and higher rates for these 
small- and medium-sized carriers, and they will be driven right out of 
the marketplace.
  What about our ports and our infrastructure? Ports in their 
communities have invested billions of dollars in developing their port 
facilities through local taxes and bond issues. But when these 
consortia enter into secret deals under the protection of antitrust 
immunity, they are going to drive the small carrier out of business, 
the very tenants in those ports that pay the rent to pay off the bonds.
  When U.S. Lines, for example, went bankrupt, it left the port of New 
York with a vacant terminal. That terminal has been vacant for 15 
years. Who paid for the construction? The port of New York-New Jersey. 
Who paid for the financing of an empty terminal? The port of New York-
New Jersey. Do we want to see that repeated all over the country?
  With the demise of small carriers in a regime of secret agreements, 
surviving large carriers will consolidate their operations at the 
larger ports. Carriers will stop calling at many of the smaller ports. 
Jobs, public investment, will be lost.
  One of the fundamental purposes of the 1984 act was to reach a 
balance by legalizing international cartels with antitrust immunity, 
but requiring public disclosure of the agreements between the carriers 
in the cartel and the essential terms of the contract between carriers 
and shippers, so everyone would know that ports, manufacturers, 
retailers, consumers in the United States are not being discriminated 
against.

  The contracts in this bill will promote survival of cartels and 
survival of large carriers. There may be a short-term decrease in rates 
as they use market power to drive small and independent carriers out of 
business. But when, as the chairman of Sea Land predicts, there are 
only three cartels left controlling 85 to 90 percent of the world 
trade, rates are going to go up. They are going to put U.S. exporters 
out of business or at a disadvantage in the international market. We 
should not launch that process here with this legislation.
  The overriding purpose of shipping laws should be to ensure that the 
small as well as the large shipper is able to have their goods shipped 
anywhere in the world at a competitive price.
  My other concern is that the bill transfers the remaining functions 
of the FMC to the Secretary of Transportation instead of an independent 
regulatory panel. The former FMC responsibilities would not 
appropriately be exercised by an independent panel. So my amendment 
would do that. My amendment will do that.
  The Republic of China, for example, has restricted the ability of 
U.S. carriers to operate terminals and freight forwarding operations in 
China, even though we allow Chinese carriers to conduct these same 
operations in the United States. The Japanese Government imposes a 
harbor tax that does not benefit navigation, but only increases the 
price of United States exports to Japan.
  I believe we ought to have an independent body, insulated from 
pressures by the State Department, to pursue elimination of trade 
barriers. That is why I propose that we transfer this function to the 
Surface Transportation Board.
  My amendment leaves in place elimination of the Federal Maritime 
Commission; elimination of tariff filing and regulation by the 
Government; restrictions on the contents of contracts between shippers 
and carriers are eliminated; laws related to unfair trade practices of 
foreign carriers and foreign governments will be strengthened; 
conferences will not be able to prevent their members from making 
individual, lower cost ocean transportation contracts with shippers.
  We deal with two shortcomings of the legislation. Airlines do not 
have antitrust immunity for anything domestically. Shipping conferences 
have antitrust immunity for point-to-point

[[Page H4348]]

rates. No other mode of transportation has antitrust immunity for 
point-to-point rates. We should not allow secret deals to be made under 
such protection.
  My amendment will make this bill acceptable in the other body, 
acceptable to the administration. It will make it possible for us to 
enact good deregulation. I urge support for the amendment I have set 
forth.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. Chairman, we already had exhaustive debate on this issue, so I 
will attempt to be brief. First, though I would like to again correct 
what perhaps was a misstatement. My good friend, the gentleman from 
Minnesota, said, ``secret deals under protection of antitrust 
immunity.'' This legislation does not provide antitrust immunity for 
private contracts. We have said it several times. I hate to be 
repetitive. But the antitrust immunity only applies to where the 
tariffs are set. So again I emphasize that point. As a matter of fact, 
if anybody doubts it, read the bill.
  Second, the ability to negotiate private contracts with carriers was 
the bottom line in the compromise for all our U.S. shippers.
  Third, every other mode of transportation has this ability to 
negotiate private contracts. The airlines have it, the trucks have it, 
the rails have it. Every other mode has it except for ocean shipping. 
That is one of the fundamental reforms here which will create more 
competition.
  Again, while my dear friend stood up now and said how harmful this is 
going to be, less than a month ago he said, ``Shippers and consumers 
will pay less for their products. The ports will be handling more 
cargoes and the ocean carriers will have a more competitive operating 
environment.''
  I recognize, as of last Friday night, things changed. And what 
changed, of course, was that some of the labor unions decided at the 
last minute to try to get another bite at the apple to oppose it. But 
it is important to emphasize that the seafarers, who are most directly 
affected by this legislation, support the bill as we bring it to the 
floor.
  Mr. Chairman, for all of those reasons, I will not belabor the point. 
We have debated it.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Oberstar amendment to the 
Ocean Shipping Reform Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the provisions of the Ocean Shipping Reform 
Act which abolish the Federal Maritime Commission. But I am proud of 
the work this agency has done to combat unfair foreign shipping 
practices that injure U.S. carriers and U.S. importers and exporters. 
Since 1920, we have successfully fought commercial cargo preference 
programs of foreign governments, restrictions on carrier operations, 
restrictions on port operations, and foreign taxes designed to limit 
imports from the United States. The FMC has experienced a remarkable 
success rate--100 percent. They have never failed to get the foreign 
government to eliminate their unfair practice--not once.
  One of the major reasons for this glaring success is the independent 
nature of the agency. They are insulated from pressures from the State 
Department that may have other foreign policy objectives with the 
country involved. Only the President can overrule a finding by the 
Commission on an unfair foreign trade practice. No President has ever 
done this. Last summer when H.R. 2149 was reported out of committee, 
the Surface Transportation Board did not exist. The Surface 
Transportation Board, or Surf-Board, was created by the ICC Termination 
Act to take over the remaining functions of the ICC. It is an 
independent board within the Department of Transportation, insulated 
from the politics of the executive branch. The name of the board is 
deceiving--it does much more than regulate surface transportation.
  It currently regulates all of the water carriers transporting goods 
from the continental United States to Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and 
Guam. These trade routes had been regulated by the FMC. The Surf-Board 
has the experience and expertise necessary to handle the FMC's 
regulatory issues.
  Even with the reforms in H.R. 2149, the statutes which govern 
international ocean transportation will require an agency to perform 
many important oversight functions. Fairness and impartiality require 
that these functions be performed by an independent agency, not a 
political department of the Executive Branch.
  For example, the agency will need to resolve all allegations by U.S. 
or foreign shippers or U.S. ports that they have been discriminated 
against or have been denied service by one or a group of ocean 
carriers. The agency will also be required to review agreements among 
ocean carriers to ensure the agreements are not anti-competitive. The 
funding of collectively bargained fringe benefit obligations must be 
overseen by the agency. Finally, the agency must administer laws 
governing unfair trading practices by foreign governments related to 
the shipping industry. All of these functions demand an independent 
agency with expertise in maritime issues. They should not be held 
captive to political winds and special interest favors.
  Finally, I support the Oberstar amendment because it would provide 
for the supervision of all transportation systems under one board--the 
Surface Transportation Board. In today's environment of intermodalism, 
this makes sense. The Surf-Board regulates rail roads, motor carriers, 
and water carriers engaged in our domestic transportation system. Now, 
with the Oberstar amendment, it can supervise intermodal movements with 
those carriers in our international trades as well.
  I call on my colleagues to support the Oberstar amendment. Surely, 
the transferal of the FMC's functions to an independent agency with the 
expertise to govern the shipping trade is something on which we can all 
agree. America's business and shipping interests are at stake. Support 
the Oberstar amendment--it protects American business and the consumer. 
This approach only makes sense.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and speak in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee and the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina, for 
their insight, and indeed the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Minnesota, for some of his thoughts earlier today on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I will confess I am new to this process. I came from 
the outside world. I am not a career politician. Getting here has been 
a rather eye-opening experience. I have noted with great interest the 
disdain that many of my constituents have for what they term 
``gridlock'' or almost a playground type of contentious debate that 
happens here.
  While major policy differences should be discussed and indeed debated 
in this Chamber, and we champion that, and indeed we champion 
differences in opinion, I cannot help but notice the irony of the 
situation in which the Committee of the Whole House finds itself today 
with reference to this piece of legislation.
  Again, even taking into account the comments of my good friend, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking member, I just 
note the irony that fairly drips from the comments of August 1, 1995, 
from my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota: ``This bill injects 
a very healthy and significant dose of flexibility of competitive 
opportunity into the carrier and shipper relationship. That was the aim 
of my bill. I am pleased to see we are taking that tack in this 
legislation. It is what will be good for ocean shipping.'' So said my 
good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, in August.
  Indeed, as I understand, hearing from my good friend, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, essentially this point 
of view prevailed until what legislatively, Mr. Chairman, becomes the 
very last nanosecond of the 11th hour, when those who sought to find 
fault with the legislation chose to step in and inject the whole notion 
of union bossism into this process.

                              {time}  1700

  Now, this is a free country and certainly those special interests 
have a

[[Page H4349]]

chance to stand up and say ``no.'' But, Mr. Chairman, what is the 
prevalent difference?
  Now we find, Mr. Chairman, that confidential agreements, a hallmark 
of doing business in almost every commercial endeavor, are suddenly 
given the name rhetorically, secret agreements, as if there is 
something ominous, as if the entire practice of doing business is 
somehow protected. But then again, what are we to expect of those who 
constantly propagate a philosophy that would tell us that taxes are 
really just investments in government growth, and that Washington knows 
best, and it must always be the constant oversight of some governmental 
body into every endeavor; only that process, only Washington knows 
best, only government exercise of oversight can ensure the true and 
property aims of business.
  Mr. Chairman, I assert that if it is good in other areas of 
transportation deregulation, if confidential agreements and other 
essential staples of the business process are good in the deregulation 
that has gone on in other sectors of transportation, why now, at the 
very last nanosecond of the 11th hour, are there problems? This is a 
good piece of legislation as it stands. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of the legislation as presented. I oppose the Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, the 
distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his courtesies. 
I am sorry that the gentleman from Arizona exhibited such discourtesy 
in displaying a quote up there which is incomplete, takes out of 
context or at least leaves out conveniently something I did say. I am 
glad he thought it was important to quote what I said. I have quoted 
myself, and I do not need to be quoted in a poster by the gentleman 
from Arizona and then have part of it left out.
  I supported the legislation as it was pending in committee. I said it 
accomplishes preservation of the conference carrier system, which is 
important to carriers, and injects a healthy and significant dose of 
flexibility. Put the whole thing in context. Do not just quote part of 
what I said.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Oberstar amendment to 
protect the small-and medium-sized ports, the small shippers, and the 
working people of the Nation.
  I compliment the gentleman from Minnesota, the ranking member of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, for offering this 
amendment.
  It is absolutely vital for the survival of the small- and medium-
sized ports in this country that rates between conferences and shippers 
be open for public scrutiny.
  The committee bill allows those rates to be kept secret--a practice 
that will allow conferences to become cartels that will put everyone in 
their way out of business.
  The secrecy provision will allow big carriers to cut deals with big 
shippers that get rid of most of the Nation's ports, many small 
shipping companies and tens of thousands of jobs.
  Without the Oberstar amendment, H.R. 2149 is a protection bill for 
big business and big shippers.
  This amendment maintains the public disclosure requirements that were 
enacted in 1984 and have worked well.
  It will provide protection for small and medium-sized ports, for 
small shippers and for tens of thousands of jobs at the 90 percent of 
the ports in this country that will be put at risk by this bill.
  We can reform the ocean shipping laws without giving our endorsement 
to cartels and without promoting the elimination of virtually every one 
of our Nation's ports.
  We can reform the ocean shipping laws without jeopardizing tens of 
thousands of jobs throughout the country.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2149 has it backwards. It provides help and 
protection for the big guys when we should be providing that help for 
the small shippers and the small- and medium-sized ports.
  The Oberstar amendment will correct problems with the bill by 
maintaining the system that has worked since 1984.
  The Oberstar amendment is needed so that the thousands who depend on 
ports along with the Nation's consumers, are not trampled in this rush 
to rewrite shipping laws in a way that helps only the big ports, the 
big carriers and the big shippers.
  Without the Oberstar amendment, H.R. 2149 is a job killer and should 
be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I became quite concerned when my good friend said that 
only part of his quote was included, so I have the full quote here and 
I do not believe it changes the thrust of what was said at all. But 
nevertheless, in order to be totally fair, I want to insert the entire 
quote into the Record, which is the following:

       The bill accomplishes preservation of the committee carrier 
     system, which is important to the carriers, but it also 
     injects a very healthy and significant dose of flexibility, 
     of competitive opportunity into the carrier and shipper 
     relationship. That was the aim of my bill. I am pleased to 
     see we are taking that tack in this legislation. It is what 
     will be good for ocean shipping.

  That is the complete quote of my good friend, and I think it is 
important to put it in the Record so the Record is clear.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, that is what I attempted to do with the 
quote of the gentleman from Arizona, or that he attempted to represent 
as attributed to me. But the point is, what I said there does not bear 
on the subject of our debate this afternoon.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will just make a brief statement here. 
Coming from northwest Iowa and a very large agricultural district, I am 
quite concerned about how this amendment would affect agriculture and 
agricultural exports. A few of the groups that support this legislation 
and oppose the amendment, the American Farm Bureau, the Blue Diamond 
Growers, National Broiler Council, National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Pork 
Producers Council, National Turkey Federation, United Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetable Association, oppose the Oberstar amendment and support the 
legislation as is.
  I think it is critical to look as far as how it affects agriculture, 
the fact that in 1996 we expect to export about 60 billion dollars' 
worth of products, and 18 percent of the cost of exporting in the 
transportation sector is due to the fact that we have to disclose at 
this time what our rates are but our competitors overseas do not have 
to disclose their rates. In effect, what is happening is that if when 
we post our rates, our competitors come in and see what it is and just 
simply undercut us and we lose that business, but we still pay a 
premium here and it certainly is unfair.
  I cannot quite understand why an amendment would be offered, I guess, 
that would undercut agriculture, the gentleman I know is from Minnesota 
and has large agricultural exports that would cause such problems for 
agriculture itself. I just strongly oppose this amendment because of 
the effect, that one of the bright parts of this legislation is the 
fact that we will be competitive in the world. As we move forward into 
the next millennium, it is essential that we are on an equal playing 
field in agriculture in all of our exports. That is why I strongly 
oppose this amendment and support the bill as it is.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words in support of the Oberstar amendment.
  I want to salute the ranking member [Mr. Oberstar] for his creative 
and market-oriented proposal. This amendment is precisely what should 
have been done in the committee process, an

[[Page H4350]]

open discussion of the meaning and implication of the legislation.
  I am no enemy of deregulation, and believe all of us who are 
supporting Mr. Oberstar are of the same view. I personally wrote the 
New Jersey Telecommunications Act, which substantially deregulated the 
industry and modernized my State phone system into a national 
telecommunications leader. I have voted for similar proposals here in 
the House.
  I think there are constructive measures that will improve ocean 
transportation, but it cannot be a backroom deal. The Oberstar 
amendment has broken the code. Look at the bill. What does the term 
``confidential agreement'' mean? If we are deregulating this industry, 
why do we have to include authorization for confidential contracts?
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] has it right. Secret 
deals. This bill is carteling in its purest form, secret 
deals, antitrust immunity and no Government oversight. Do we really 
think the small shipper has any chance in the face of this monopoly 
power? To the friends of small businesses in this Congress, you have 
got to think, your transportation price may go down in the short term 
just long enough to consolidate the vast grants of monopoly power, and 
then you will pay and you will pay dearly.

  Chairman Shuster has stated correctly that antitrust immunity covers 
only the conference rate and not rates negotiated by an individual 
carrier, but in reality both rates are part of a package. The carriers 
are allowed to get together under antitrust immunity to set a 
conference rate. Each carrier is then free to depart from this rate on 
a selective basis.
  To evaluate antitrust immunity we need to know when the conference 
rate is followed and when it is not. Are special rates being made 
available only to certain large shippers? Is the conference rate set 
under antitrust immunity subsidizing discount rates for larger 
carriers? If individual agreements are secret as they would be under 
H.R. 2149, we will never know.
  Mr. Oberstar's amendment says yes to smaller Government, it says yes 
to less regulation, it says yes to savings in the budget, but it says 
no to secret deals and cartels. If this legislation is enacted, only 
the largest shippers will benefit from secretive shipping contracts 
that discriminate against smaller shippers, and these secret deals will 
allow Fortune 100 corporations to avoid public disclosure and to use 
their already potent market powers to exact privileged rates while 
smaller shippers, businesses and carriers, their employees and ports 
across the Nation will be left defenseless.
  Clearly, the thousands of smaller businesses that rely on the 
transparency of prices, and the level playing field that provides--we 
heard a lot about that in the Telecommunications Act that was passed 
here in the House, that everybody starting on a level playing field, 
about transparency. That is in fact what we are arguing for here. If 
not, we will be forced to pay higher rates and thus subsidize the 
larger more powerful competitors.
  For American ports and thousands of longshore, warehousing, trucking, 
rail, and related industry employees in and around port communities, 
this unfair pricing and operating environment could lead to severe 
economic dislocation, declining wages, and job loss, and that is 
something we cannot afford. That is why the American Association of 
Port Authorities recently joined transportation labor and many smaller 
shippers to oppose H.R. 2149 in its present form.
  The Oberstar amendment would eliminate a Federal agency, it would 
allow for sensible ocean shipping reforms, but it would ensure the 
essential terms of contracts are not kept in secret at the expense of 
ports, shippers, employees, and other shipping interests. That is why 
it deserves our unanimous support, and that is why we urge all of our 
colleagues to be voting for it.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was back in my office watching this debate, and I 
thought I was living in the sixties and the seventies. The same 
arguments that those that support the Oberstar amendment were made time 
and time again in opposition to the deregulation of trucking, to the 
deregulation of aviation, to the deregulation of railroads. Small 
communities will not be served. We have got to have tariffs filed so 
that everybody can see them. We have got to have the Government 
involved or small shippers will not be able to find somebody to carry 
their goods.
  How many times have we heard these arguments in trucking, in 
aviation, in railroads? And you know what? Not one of those arguments 
came true in those modes of transportation. Not one.
  In fact, just the opposite happened, because those of us that oppose 
the Oberstar amendment believe in the free enterprise system, believe 
that in competition the quality of service goes up, the number of 
people that offer themselves for service goes up, and the cost of 
transportation goes down. It is not artificially held up, because the 
Government knows best. That is what the Oberstar amendment is 
attempting to do, to change a very well-crafted compromise in this 
bill.
  I have to tell you if I was writing this bill and I had the votes, it 
would not be this bill, because in this bill the chairman crafted a 
bipartisan, at least at the time, a bipartisan compromise to take care 
of some of the concerns of those that do not believe in the free market 
system. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, and it has already been 
expressed here on the floor, at the last minute, this compromise was 
rejected.
  We ought to be opening up markets. We ought to be allowing shippers 
and shipping companies and ocean shipping companies to come together 
and, through the free market system, devise contracts that meet the 
needs of that market. That is what we are trying to do here.
  It worked in trucking. Let me give you an example why I was so 
supportive of deregulation of trucking. In my part of the country, 
outside of Houston, TX, we have a lot of small towns and they needed 
trucking service. But the Government said only one truck line, in a 
cartel type way, could service my small towns. The argument was, oh, my 
goodness, if you opened it up, that truck line would not go to 
Rosenberg, TX, because it is too small a market.

  You know what happened in Rosenberg, TX, with the car dealers? They 
could not get their parts shipped by this one trucking company that had 
authority to carry goods to Rosenberg, TX. So a Hispanic gentleman who 
cleaned commodes for one of the car dealers got in a truck and went up 
and picked up his parts on the other side of Houston and brought them 
back. He said, ``This is a pretty good deal.'' He started going around 
to the other car dealers, and they were having the same problem, so he 
bought himself a van and started himself a little business, provided a 
service that was not being provided by the Government authority given 
to one trucking company.
  But you know what? They caught him and they said ``You can't do this 
anymore, because the government says you can't do it.'' He says, ``Why 
not?'' He says, ``Because you got to have a piece of paper from the 
government to allow you to go pick up auto parts in Houston and bring 
them to Rosenberg.'' ``How do I get that piece of paper?'' ``You have 
to hire a lawyer.'' ``How much does a lawyer cost?'' ``Well, it will 
cost you at least $25,000, and then you are not guaranteed to get the 
authority.''
  He went back to cleaning commodes in Rosenberg, TX.
  Now, they will say probably oh, well, this does not apply, because we 
are talking about large ships and we are talking about small ports and 
we are talking about small shippers. The market is the same no matter 
whether it is ships or trucks or airplanes or railroads. The point here 
is we are trying to move into the 21st century, and the proponents and 
the supporters of the Oberstar amendment want to keep us in the 1930's, 
when regulation of trucking was first passed, in the 1920's, when 
regulation of railroads was passed.
  We are in a world economy and we cannot afford the 1930's type 
economics.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has 
expired.

[[Page H4351]]

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to run the U.S. economy 
based on 1930's economics, and that is what we are trying to do here. 
We are trying to change it, to bring America into the 21st century. 
Unfortunately, the gentleman from Minnesota wants to keep us in the 
1930's.
  I urge you to vote ``no'' on the Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Oberstar 
amendment to H.R. 2149, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1995.
  The maritime industry is one of the few industries in the United 
States that enjoys full immunity from our antitrust laws. Carriers are 
allowed to enter into conferences which are cartels of vessels that 
collectively set prices and allocate routes and cargo among its 
members. In the Shipping Act of 1984, Congress granted antitrust 
immunity of ocean conferences only if the carriers file their rates and 
contract terms with the Federal Maritime Commission.
  The Ocean Shipping Reform Act, however, would eliminate the 
requirement that ocean carriers disclose the essential terms of their 
contracts with shippers. Without this disclosure, the large carriers 
are likely to enter secret agreements giving major shippers low rates 
which could not be offered if the arrangement had to be disclosed. 
These secret contracts will create unfair competitive advantages for 
large shippers and large carriers, and the larger ports they serve. 
This is a real threat to the economic wellbeing and job security of 
smaller carriers and the smaller and medium size ports.
  H.R. 2149 will not result in an ocean transportation industry 
governed by market principles, but will result in a system in which 
carrier cartels will operate with legal impunity and large corporations 
will be able to secure secret, below cost transportation rates from 
carriers, with smaller shippers being charged higher and higher rates 
to make up for these concessions to mega-shippers. In other words, this 
legislation will simply intensify the alarming trends that already 
exist in the maritime industry--bigger and fewer ports, fewer and 
larger carriers, and larger shipping conglomerates.

  This is why I support the Oberstar amendment; the amendment would 
require carriers to file their rates and essential contract terms 
electronically. It balances carriers' full antitrust immunity with the 
simple requirement that they make the essential terms of their 
contracts with shippers public. It ensures that market forces are able 
to keep the power of industry conglomerates in check, providing 
safeguards to protect our consumers, manufacturers, and ports from 
secret deals that discriminate against them.
  Like H.R. 2149, the Oberstar amendment sunsets the Federal Maritime 
Commission. However, the amendment transfers the remaining enforcement 
responsibilities to the Surface Transportation Board, an independent 
transportation agency. The Ocean Shipping Reform Act transfers 
remaining authority to the Department of Transportation, a far more 
politicized cabinet department of the Federal Government.
  The Oberstar amendment aims to correct the two fundamental flaws of 
the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. The major goal of the Ocean Shipping 
Reform Act remains intact, which is to increase competition in the 
ocean shipping industry by substantially deregulating the industry. In 
fact, it is only with the adoption of this amendment that increased 
competition will occur in the maritime industry. I urge my colleagues 
to support the Oberstar amendment and then support the bill.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
   Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota. The biggest beneficiaries of public ocean transportation 
contracts are the foreign-dominated ocean shipping cartels. Public 
contracting as continued under the Oberstar amendment to my way of 
thinking would simply enhance the ability of these cartels to fix 
prices for the transportation of goods in the import and export trade.
  The data on ocean shipping confirms that over 85 percent of U.S. 
goods are carried aboard foreign vessels, and this amendment would, in 
my opinion, simply permit that to continue.
  Meanwhile, under the Shuster bill, the committee bill, we would save 
18 percent of transportation costs, according to a Department of 
Agriculture report. I have got the report right here.
  Everybody interested in agriculture, everybody interested in rural 
America, everybody interested in the balance of payments benefits that 
agriculture provides, everybody who voted for a new change, a market-
oriented farm policy, everybody who voted for freedom to farm, 
regardless of your personal opinion about all of the farm program 
policies, pay attention.

  The Department of Agriculture says:

       A cartel premium attributable to conference market power, 
     the ability to set rates above the competitive level, amounts 
     to some 18 percent of the cost of ocean transportation.

  Turn it around. Look at the benefit to our farm exports if we turn it 
around.

       The annual gain in agriculture revenues from increased 
     exports resulting from lower shipping costs would produce an 
     expected gain of $406 million, 8.1 percent of the total 
     revenues, including more commodities, more markets. It would 
     simply magnify the economic effect.

  I am quoting from the Maritime Policy and Agriculture Interests 
Impacts of the Conference System of the Department of Agriculture.
  My experience in the Marine Corps leads me to understand that there 
are very few merchant ships left that are registered in the United 
States. Now, think a minute. If you publicize the contracts that 
primarily benefit our foreign competitors by allowing them to estimate 
a U.S. exporter's shipping costs, that simply permits the foreign 
carriers to have a great advantage over our U.S. carriers. It is not 
only going to hurt them, it is going to hurt all of the exporters, all 
of the added value product exporters, and all we are trying to do in 
regard to agriculture today.
  I am informed by the distinguished chairman that U.S. shippers, 
especially the small shippers, support the bill without such an 
amendment. So I would urge Members, all members of the House Committee 
on Agriculture, all members of the various task forces on either side 
of the aisle, to oppose this amendment, and to support not only the 
U.S. business, but simply U.S. agriculture, who trade overseas. So 
support the U.S. farmer and the producers who really wish to enhance 
our agriculture exports. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote against 
the Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Oberstar 
amendment. I represent the city of San Diego. We are engaged in a major 
effort with the support of all members of the community to upgrade the 
Port of San Diego, to transform the economy of San Diego, to provide 
thousands of jobs in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, as currently written, this legislation would hurt 
smaller-sized ports like the Port of San Diego. By allowing shippers 
and carriers to enter into secret and confidential shipping agreements, 
the concept of common carriage will effectively disappear. It has been 
this concept of the public display of contract terms that has kept 
ocean transportation available to small- and medium-sized shippers on 
the same terms and conditions as large shippers.
  This public disclosure of contract terms stimulates competition and 
ensures a level playing field for shippers and ports alike. Keeping 
contract details secret would put smaller shippers and ports with niche 
markets at a decided disadvantage and unable to match preferential 
deals offered by the largest companies and ports.
  We should not grant economic advantages to anyone and the Oberstar 
amendment ensures this by providing fair and equal opportunity for 
everyone--large and small--in ocean transportation: the ports, the 
carriers, and the employees of both. The economic well-being of 
America's ocean transportation depends on this amendment.

[[Page H4352]]

Keep ocean shipping fair. Vote ``yes'' on Oberstar.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to read a quote from a former 
colleague of ours in California now: ``For 20 years I have advocated 
the orderly economic deregulation of American transportation systems. 
Air and ground transportation deregulation have largely been completed, 
with consumers and businesses benefiting from less government and more 
competition. This new proposal extends deregulation to ocean 
transportation. It is a commonsense, balanced proposal, providing a 
clear road map and a schedule for ocean freight deregulation.'' Norm 
Mineta, June 28, 1995.
  Something has happened since then. Something has happened in 
Washington since that statement was uttered. And there is more. And my 
colleagues will share some of the other statements.
  When we look at the partisanship displayed on the floor on this 
issue, it is no wonder things are not happening here in Washington. I 
heard the last speaker say we should not grant economic opportunities 
to select people. Some of us in this Congress feel NAFTA and GATT 
granted select opportunities to certain individuals.
  In Florida, my agricultural industry is under great pressure from 
NAFTA. Tomatoes are almost being run out of business. Citrus is next. 
Why do we not pass a bill with bipartisan support on ocean shipping 
reform, allowing elimination of tariffs and tariff enforcements, giving 
an opportunity to American vessels, American shippers, to be able to 
compete in the international marketplace?
  NAFTA and GATT were talked about as great incentives for the economic 
opportunities of all Americans. All Americans are going to benefit from 
NAFTA and GATT. Well, let us extend that great system we have passed on 
the floor to ocean shipping. Why leave shippers out of the equation?
  But somehow the politics of this House turns on the dime, that thin 
dime Mr. Gore spoke of when he talked about minimum wage. When we talk 
about minimum wage, they had on the other side 2 years to do it while 
they had control. No discussion of minimum wage. Gas tax. All of a 
sudden, my God, gases are high. Call Janet Reno, have her investigate. 
Gas companies must be in collusion.
  Nobody stands here on the floor and says, by God, I passed a 4.3 cent 
increase in the gas tax, I wonder if that had something to do with it. 
Consumers in American need to know that the taxes passed by this 
Congress and State legislatures throughout the Nation add probably 40, 
50 cents per gallon of gasoline.
  So when you pull up to the pump, do not immediately shout it must be 
Exxon's fault. Think of the people in this body that on partisan 
rhetoric destroy legislation or attempt to destroy legislation that at 
one time, just a short period ago, was fine with Mr. Mineta, apparently 
fine with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and others.
  Clearly, I would say to my colleagues that we have a bill on this 
floor that reforms a system that desperately needs reforming. We have 
not had all perfect experiences with deregulation, as people will 
testify on transportation, like airlines. But I think, by and large, 
the prices consumers pay today to fly from West Palm Beach, FL to 
Washington, DC, $137 on a round-trip basis, are largely as a result of 
deregulation. Lower prices for consumers, benefiting America, 
benefiting the airliners, benefiting everyone involved in the process.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOLEY. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I voted for airline deregulation, and 
trucking and bus deregulation, and rail deregulation. But I wanted to 
say, since my former colleague is no longer here to explain himself, 
that quote was taken at a time when we had a concept of a bill and not 
the specific language of a bill. It is not relevant to the present 
debate.
  Mr. FOLEY. So the gentleman thinks the conversation has changed 
completely?
  Mr. OBEY. I am saying the quote was taken at a time before there was 
an introduced bill. It is not relevant to the bill at hand.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, maybe this is an insight that 
we are hearing about, that this was a concept. A bill was worked out, 
supposedly a compromise. I have three letters here, one from the AFL-
CIO, one from International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and one from a 
group called Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, the 
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, 
all dated yesterday.
  So my point is I know why from the time that this was a concept and 
this quote was made, through the time that a bipartisan effort was put 
together, to the time of yesterday, when Mr. Sweeney barked, they 
jumped. That is what is going on here. When the Sweeneys and the 
Washington union bosses barked, they jumped and changed and took 
another tack on this and offered the Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOLEY. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the date of that quote is June 28, 1995. 
At that time we had issued our release and we spelled out the seven 
principles of this bill, and nothing has changed up to this day.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago the House approved the truth in 
budgeting act. If there is truth in budgeting, surely there must be 
truth in contracting, and that is what the Oberstar amendment does.
  I too support the goals of most of the provisions of H.R. 2149, 
including the provision which eliminates the Federal Maritime 
Commission prohibiting ocean carrier conferences from restricting the 
rights of individual carriers to make contracts with shippers and 
eliminate the requirement that tariffs must be filed with a Government 
agency.
  However, I do believe that there should be two modifications to the 
bill to meet the concerns which have been raised by consumers, and that 
is what the Oberstar amendment does.
  The Oberstar amendment is not a killer amendment, it does not gut the 
bill. With the amendment, the bill will still take the following 
important actions to deregulate the ocean shipping industry: The 
Federal Maritime Commission will be eliminated, restrictions on the 
contents of contracts between shippers and carriers will be eliminated, 
and laws related to unfair trade practices of foreign carriers and 
foreign governments will be strengthened.
  As I said earlier, a few weeks ago the House approved the truth in 
budgeting act. If there is truth in budgeting, surely there must be 
truth in contracting.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I just wanted to say that repeatedly my chairman has said that 
seagoing maritime labor supports this legislation, and I have called to 
find out just what is their position on this matter, and both the 
American maritime officers and the seafarers are not in support of the 
legislation unless it is amended as we have proposed. I just wanted to 
get the record straight.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Oberstar amendment to the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1995.
  The Oberstar amendment continues current law requiring the public 
disclosure of the terms of ocean and shipping contracts to ensure fair 
competition. The amendment also preserves the objectives of the bill to 
ease the regulatory burden by eliminating the Federal Maritime 
Commission and transferring its authority to the independent Surface 
Transportation Board.
   Mr. Chairman, all things that are done in darkness will inevitably 
come to light. The bill before us was abruptly reported out of 
committee without the benefit of public hearings--darkness Mr. 
Chairman, darkness. Now, there

[[Page H4353]]

are some Members of this body who seek to keep the consumers in the 
dark by prohibiting the public disclosure of the terms of shipping 
contracts. If we allow them to prohibit the public disclosure of 
information and allow shippers and carriers to enter into back room 
deals, we will permit larger shippers and carriers to engage in secret 
negotiations and enter into secret contracts. Such secret contracts are 
anticompetitive and may have a negative impact on workers by driving 
the smaller shipping and carrying companies out of business. This may 
well also lead to higher prices for the consumer because of a lack of 
competition.
  In 1992, when I began my service in the California State legislature, 
I did so with a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation. I bring this 
same approach to governing with me as I begin my service in this 
distinguished body. This amendment enjoys bipartisan support--and let 
me tell you why Mr. Chairman. This issue and this amendment is not 
about one political party or the other. This issue is about right and 
wrong. In my district, in southern Los Angeles County, there is a place 
called Mormon Island. On Mormon Island are docks and berths where 
warehousemen and longshoremen work hard to earn a living to support 
their families. Let me tell you what would happen if we allow this bill 
to pass without the Oberstar amendment; larger shippers and carriers 
would get together and create deals and agreements without the benefit 
of public scrutiny. This would allow those larger companies to lock the 
smaller companies out of the industry and force them out of business. 
Without the Oberstar amendment, Fortune 100 shipping companies would be 
able to avoid public disclosure while hurting the smaller shipping 
companies that rely on the transparency of prices. If those companies 
are not allowed to compete fairly, on a level playing field, they will 
not be able to survive. The warehousemen and longshoremen, the working 
people in my district depend on those small companies for employment 
and ultimately their livelihoods. In this Congresswoman's opinion, we 
would serve our constituents best by supporting fair competition and 
maintaining the current law which prohibits shipping companies from 
entering into secret contracts.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the consumer, support 
fair competition, and support public disclosure by voting ``yes'' on 
the Oberstar amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 224, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 143]

                               AYES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--224

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Berman
     Bonilla
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Goss
     Kaptur
     Largent
     Molinari
     Myers
     Solomon
     Torricelli
     Waxman

                              {time}  1755

  Messrs. HOSTETTLER, BACHUS, and STOCKMAN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SCHIFF and Mr. PAYNE of Virginia changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to title I?

                              {time}  1800

  The CHAIRMAN. If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:

                TITLE II--CONTROLLED CARRIERS AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 201. CONTROLLED CARRIERS.

       Section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1708) 
     is amended, effective on June 1, 1997--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``in its tariffs or 
     service contracts filed with the Commission'' and ``in those 
     tariffs or service contracts'' in the first sentence, and by 
     striking ``filed by a controlled carrier'' in the last 
     sentence;
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``filed'' and inserting 
     ``published'', in paragraphs (1) and (2);
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking the first sentence;
       (4) subsection (d) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Within 120 days of the receipt of information 
     requested by the Secretary under this section, the Secretary 
     shall determine whether the rates, charges, classifications, 
     rules, or regulations of a controlled carrier may be unjust 
     and unreasonable. If so, the Secretary shall issue an order 
     to the controlled carrier to show cause why those rates, 
     charges, classifications, rules, or regulations should not be 
     approved. Pending a determination, the Secretary may suspend 
     the

[[Page H4354]]

     rates, charges, classifications, rules, or regulations at any 
     time. No period of suspension may be greater than 180 days. 
     Whenever the Secretary has suspended any rates, charges, 
     classifications, rules, or regulations under this subsection, 
     the affected carrier may publish and, after notification to 
     the Secretary, assess new rates, charges, classifications, 
     rules, or regulations--except that the Secretary may reject 
     the new rates, charges, classifications, rules, or 
     regulations if the Secretary determines that they are 
     unreasonable.'';
       (5) in subsection (f), by striking ``This'' and inserting 
     ``Subject to subsection (g), this''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(g) The rate standards, information submissions, 
     remedies, reviews, and penalties in this section shall also 
     apply to ocean common carriers that are not controlled, but 
     who have been determined by the Secretary to be structurally 
     or financially affiliated with nontransportation entities or 
     organizations (government or private) in such a way as to 
     affect their pricing or marketplace behavior in an unfair, 
     predatory, or anticompetitive way that disadvantages United 
     States carriers. The Secretary may make such determinations 
     upon request of any person or upon the Secretary's own 
     motion, after conducting an investigation and a public 
     hearing.
       ``(h) The Secretary shall issue regulations by June 1, 
     1997, that prescribe periodic price and other information to 
     be submitted by controlled carriers and carriers subject to 
     determinations made under subsection (g) that would be needed 
     to determine whether prices charged by these carriers are 
     unfair, predatory, or anticompetitive.''.

     SEC. 202. NEGOTIATING STRATEGY TO REDUCE GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP 
                   AND CONTROL OF COMMON CARRIERS.

       Not later than January 1, 1997, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall develop, submit to Congress, and begin 
     implementing a negotiation strategy to persuade foreign 
     governments to divest themselves of ownership and control of 
     ocean common carriers (as that term is defined in section 
     3(18) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1702).

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:

       TITLE III--ELIMINATION OF THE FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

     SEC. 301. PLAN FOR AGENCY TERMINATION.

       (a) No later than 30 days after enactment of this Act, the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall 
     submit to Congress a plan to eliminate the Federal Maritime 
     Commission no later than October 1, 1997. The plan shall 
     include a timetable for the transfer of remaining functions 
     to the Federal Maritime Commission to the Secretary of 
     Transportation, beginning as soon as feasible in fiscal year 
     1996. The plan shall also address matters related to 
     personnel and other resources necessary for the Secretary of 
     Transportation to perform the remaining functions of the 
     Federal Maritime Commission.

       (b) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall implement the plan to eliminate the Federal Maritime 
     Commission, beginning as soon as feasible in fiscal year 
     1996.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title III?
  Are there any further amendments to the bill?


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to clarify a matter with the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on National Security, if he is 
on the floor. we have, Mr. Chairman, as far as I know we have, the one 
amendment, and it is not controversial. However, there might be a 
parliamentary problem with it, and we are attempting right now to clear 
that matter with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], 
chairman of the Committee on National Security.
  Mr. Chairman, I have parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. SHUSTER. At what title of the bill are we now in consideration?
  The CHAIRMAN. We are at the end of the bill, I would advise the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Is it possible to return to an earlier title of the 
bill, or is that impossible?
  The CHAIRMAN. It can be done by unanimous consent only.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I simply am asking a parliamentary inquiry in order to 
give my friend from Michigan an opportunity to get to the microphone.


                    amendment offered by mr. stupak

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak: At the end of the bill, 
     add the following new title:

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE TUGBOATS OF THE NAVY.

       (a) Requirement To Transfer Vessels.--The Secretary of the 
     Navy shall transfer the six obsolete tugboats of the Navy 
     specified in subsection (b) to the Northeast Wisconsin 
     Railroad Transportation Commission, an instrumentality of the 
     State of Wisconsin. Such transfers shall be made as 
     expeditiously as practicable upon completion of any necessary 
     environmental compliance agreements.
       (b) Vessels Covered.--The requirement in subsection (a) 
     applies to the six decommissioned Cherokee class tugboats, 
     listed as of the date of the enactment of this Act as being 
     surplus to the Navy, that are designated as ATF-105, ATF-110, 
     ATF-149, ATF-158, ATF-159, and ATF-160.
       (c) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require such 
     terms and conditions in connection with the transfers 
     required by this section as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.

  Mr. STUPAK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is relevant to the Ocean 
Shipping Act because it deals with maritime commerce on the Great Lakes 
and involves foreign commerce with Canada, highly important to my 
district and to the region. My amendment, the text of my bill, H.R. 
2821, simply attempts to save the American taxpayers a considerable 
cost that the U.S. Navy incurs.
  Mr. Chairman, let me explain my amendment. I do believe that this 
amendment is relevant to the Ocean Shipping Act because it deals with 
maritime commerce on the Great Lakes and it involves foreign commerce 
on the Great Lakes and it involves foreign commerce with Canada, highly 
important to my district and to the region.
  My amendment, the text of my bill, H.R. 2821, simply attempts to save 
the American taxpayers the considerable costs that the U.S. Navy 
currently incurs with the storage of six Cherokee-class tugboats that 
are destined for transfer to the Northeast Wisconsin Railroad 
Transportation Commission.
  These tugboats are obsolete and left over from recent closures of 
naval bases and shipyards, including Long Beach in California. They 
originally were destined to be scrapped if a deadline of December 31 
was not met in achieving a compliance agreement between the railroad 
commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  The Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jeremy Boorda, personally assured 
me the Navy would not go ahead with the planned scrapping of these 
vessels if this agreement could be achieved as soon as possible. I have 
been informed that the U.S. Navy and Admiral Boorda support my measure 
to expedite this transfer, as long as the agreement can be achieved. 
I'm pleased to report that the environmental compliance agreement will 
be finalized within the next 7 days, according to officials with region 
5 of the EPA.
  If we cannot enact this transfer within the next few months, than 
additional costs for taxpayers will be incurred by forcing the Navy to 
tow these vessels up the coast of California to Suisun Bay for 
storages. According to the Navy, an additional $25,000 for each tugboat 
will have to be spent to place these vessels in interim storage, while 
the Navy currently pays more than $100,000 per year to continue the 
storage of these six vessels.

  The Government shutdowns of last November and December disrupted the 
process toward achieving an agreement, and the final details have 
finally been resolved.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply attempts to minimize the costs and 
expenses that have resulted because of Government shutdowns and delays 
in reaching an agreement. Not only would the American taxpayers save, 
but the economy of the upper Great Lakes would benefit much sooner if 
these tugboats could be placed into service as soon as possible. This 
is truly a win-win situation for everyone, for the Navy, for American 
taxpayers, and for the economy of the Great Lakes region.
  I appreciate the chairman of the committee not objecting, and I want 
to thank him, as well as Jim Oberstar, Howard Coble, and Bob Clement 
for their assistance. As well, I want to thank the chairman of the 
National Security Committee, Floyd Spence, and the former chairman, Ron 
Dellums.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we have examined the amendment. We

[[Page H4355]]

have no problem with it. We support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, with those comments from the distinguished 
gentleman, I would like to thank him, the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spence], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Oberstar], and others for their help on this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Kingston) having assumed the chair, Mr. Regula, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2149) to 
reduce regulation, promote efficiencies, and encourage competition in 
the international ocean transportation system of the United States, to 
eliminate the Federal Maritime Commission, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 419, he reported the bill back to the 
House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendments? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 182, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 144]

                               YEAS--239

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--182

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Berman
     Bonilla
     Bryant (TX)
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Goss
     Graham
     Kaptur
     Molinari
     Myers
     Rogers
     Torricelli

                              {time}  1825

  Mr. DICKS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________