[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 131 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11061-S11064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         MARITIME SECURITY ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 1350, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1350) to amend the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, 
     to revitalize the United States flag merchant marine, and for 
     other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Grassley amendment No. 5391, to provide for a uniform 
     system of incentive pay for certain hazardous duties 
     performed by merchant seamen.


                           Amendment No. 5391

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be a period of 30 minutes of 
debate, equally divided, on the motion to table the Grassley amendment 
No. 5391.
  Who seeks time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, during wartime, in an area where there 
is military conflict between the United States and an opponent, there 
are legitimate war bonuses paid to people in the military for serving 
under more severe conditions, and there are also war bonuses paid to 
our seafarers for serving under those same conditions. The only problem 
is that there is a great inequity between what the seafarers get as a 
bonus and what our regular military gets paid. The purpose of this 
amendment is to make sure that those bonuses are the same.
  So my amendment, which is about to be voted on at 10 o'clock, 
represents common sense. What people don't like about Washington is 
they see their money being wasted because we don't

[[Page S11062]]

use commonsense approaches to governing and spending the taxpayers' 
money--the same commonsense way that the average family and small 
business has to use to live within their income and balance their 
budgets.
  Why should taxpayers be saddled with war bonuses for seafarers, which 
evidence shows can be 50 times as high as those war bonuses that we 
give the men and women in the Reserve or the regular military? One 
Persian Gulf seafarer got a bonus of $15,700 for 2 months. The regular 
military would get, during that same period of time, a 2-month war 
bonus of $300--$300 as compared to $15,700.
  The argument was made last night that the taxpayers don't end up 
paying these war bonuses. Well, the taxpayers do end up paying. The 
argument was made last night that, well, our Treasury was reimbursed by 
a lot of nations around the world for our efforts in Kuwait. That is 
true, we were. I was part of the effort to make that happen. But we 
don't conduct war, or at least we should not be conducting war, to make 
a profit.
  At any time in the future when our military ends up paying these 
bonuses, the taxpayers are going to be paying them. But this is not 
just a taxpayer issue. This is an issue of equity between seafarers and 
our full-time military people.
  My colleagues have received letters from a number of taxpayers and 
public-interest organizations, representing hundreds of thousands of 
Americans, who adamantly oppose this legislation that is before us. 
Three of them have expressed support for my amendments, for instance, 
Citizens Against Government Waste will key vote my amendment. The 
National Taxpayers Union will weight it heavily in their annual voting 
analysis. And Citizens for a Sound Economy strongly supports this 
amendment as well.
  Furthermore, this war bonus amendment is supported by a number of 
retired admirals--admirals, I might add, whose good names were lent to 
the American Security Council letter in support of this bill, and who 
now support my pro-taxpayer, pro-defense amendments.
  Taxpayers do end up paying for seafarers' war bonuses. as well as the 
incredibly high salaries and benefits they receive year in and year 
out.

  This is so because we in Congress have allowed an unaccountable 
payment system to the U.S.-flag carriers that allow them to pass on to 
Uncle Sam virtually all of their costs plus a hefty profit for any 
business they do for the Government.
  Mr. President, collective bargaining is great when Congress allows us 
to have an open checking account to the United States Treasury to cover 
salaries, benefits, and war bonuses.
  This chart includes the salaries, benefits, and overtime of seafarers 
that this bill will subsidize--$310,915 per month, and most of this 
paid for by taxpayers. Seafarers get these generous benefits from 
taxpayers year in and year out, and then, if they do someday deliver 
goods into a war zone, they can get a war bonus.
  Take a look at this category called ``able-bodied seaman.'' His base 
pay is $12,192 per month. His war bonus for a month could therefore, be 
$12,192 and he could get an extra $600 per day if his vessel is 
actually shot at.
  My amendment was characterized last night, and I quote as 
``demeaning, unfair, and insulting to seafarers.'' There is no way that 
you can see it that way. What this amendment tries to do is to seek 
fairness to our men and women in the regular military, but most 
importantly accountability for the American taxpayer.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the bill before us sets up a prospect of 
having the merchant marine available to the United States in the event 
of emergency on a daily charge basis. The taxpayers will not pay any 
more regardless of the contract between the seafarers and their 
employer, the operator of the vessel. This is a new approach.
  The Senator from Iowa is mistaken. The funds that were paid for those 
ships that were in the Persian Gulf were not taxpayer dollars. They 
were dollars provided by our Persian Gulf allies. In any event, we are 
trying to change that.
  I say to my friend from Iowa that these people are not in the 
military. They are civilians. They are not subject to the control of 
the Federal Government. Their salaries are not in the control of the 
Federal Government. The Constitution prevents what the Senator from 
Iowa wants to do, and that is for Congress to legislate an amendment to 
a private contract between the seafarers and their employers.
  I have to say that, if this is the Taxpayers Union provision, as the 
Senator from Iowa said, someone has misinformed that organization 
because this bill has nothing to do with payment to the people who man 
these ships. That is between the employer and the employee. It is not a 
Government affair.
  As I said last night, our alternative is to once again try to 
contract with foreign ships to provide us vessels to carry our goods to 
supply our men and women in the field in times of crisis. In the last 
Persian Gulf crisis we did that. We paid a minimum of 50 percent more 
on the total contract--not just the seafarers' contract moneys for 
entering into a war zone but for the whole vessel. And some of them, 
despite the fact that we paid them a 100-percent bonus, refused to 
enter the war zone.
  This is a bill to give us the merchant marine we need in times of 
emergency, particularly in times of a war. These people are not in the 
military. They are not subject to the draft. They are not required to 
go in harm's way by any law that I know of, and there is no way to 
conscript them, which is what the amendment of the Senator from Iowa 
will do. It literally conscripts them, and says, ``In the event of the 
war, you are working for the Federal Government.''
  I have never heard of such an approach. I want to say again that I 
moved to table the amendment last night because it really does nothing 
to help this bill. It is an attempt to drag a red herring across the 
Senate floor and tell us that somehow or other the taxpayers will be 
forced to pay for these people extraordinary rates if they are called 
upon to provide service during times of war, that under the bill we 
have to pay whatever their contract provides that their employer is 
going to pay them. The Secretary of Defense sets the rate for the cost 
of those vessels--fully crewed--under this bill; what is paid to the 
seafarer is between the employer and the employee. It is none of the 
Federal Government's business.

  Does the Senator wish time?
  Mr. INOUYE. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield such time as the Senator from Hawaii wants.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, let the record indicate that we began this 
debate on this amendment last evening. So what I say may be a bit 
repetitive but I believe it must be repeated.
  In World War II, 700 merchant marine ships were sunk, and most of 
them are now resting, hopefully peacefully, at the bottom of either the 
Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean.
  When these ships went under nearly 6,000 men, civilians who were 
carrying military cargo, went down with the ships. The casualties that 
exceeded 6,000 in World War II was second only to that experienced by 
the U.S. Marine Corps.
  There is a difference. This amendment would suggest that merchant 
mariners should receive the same combat pay as our GI's suggesting that 
merchant mariners are overpaid for standing in harm's way.
  Mr. President, as some of my colleagues are aware, I had the great 
honor of serving my country in uniform. And for serving in harm's way I 
received combat pay, which was a token amount. I believe at that time 
it was $10 a month. But we were not in the service for pay purposes. 
However, at the end of the war because of my injuries I receive a 
lifetime pension; a very generous one. I have a lifetime privilege of 
hospitalization and medical care. And that privilege also extends to my 
dependent, my wife. I received education under the GI bill of rights. 
And, as a result, I received my law degree and my baccalaureate. I can, 
if I wish to, purchase goods at the PX, or at the commissary. There are 
many privileges. For example, when I die the Government will pay for my 
coffin, and will pay for my headstone.

[[Page S11063]]

 On the other hand, for the man who serves in the merchant marine, if 
he should be wounded in action he will not receive a lifetime pension, 
nor will his wife receive hospitalization for the rest of her life. He 
will not get a tombstone; a headstone. He will not receive the benefits 
of the GI bill of rights.
  We are not talking about apples and apples, Mr. President. We cannot 
compare the merchant marine and a man on a naval vessel.
  I can understand why the merchant marine decided after World War II 
that something had to be done to bring about equity. In World War II, 
none of the benefits were available. Now, this small amount, $12,000 a 
month, for standing in harm's way and risking death is not much. As my 
colleague from Alaska pointed out, we were not providing that war 
bonus. It was by the coalition forces.
  Whatever it is, this amendment is demeaning to the merchant 
mariners--to suggest that merchant marine seamen are mercenaries. They 
are not mercenaries. In Desert Storm, many of the countries that were 
asked to deliver goods to our fighting forces refused to enter the 
Persian Gulf. Sixteen ships refused to go into the Persian Gulf. On the 
other hand, our American seamen, all of them, without hesitation, went 
into the most dangerous of waters. Yes, it is insulting to suggest that 
they are mercenaries. They are not. They are good, patriotic, 
dependable Americans.
  Mr. President, I will support the motion to table this amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I have 8 minutes--7 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself such time as I consume.
  I rise to respond to what the Senator from Alaska said, where he is 
right and where he is wrong. He is right that we are paying in 
corporate welfare $2.1 million per ship to have these ships available, 
and the responsibility to the companies to provide shipping to meet 
their contracts, to meet our national defense needs.
  That is under section 652. But when those ships are called up to 
deliver materiel to the war zone, then you move to page 19, and this is 
where the Senator from Alaska is wrong. It says:

       Compensation. In general, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall provide in each Emergency Preparedness Agreement fair 
     and reasonable compensation for all commercial transportation 
     resources provided pursuant to this section.

  That is above that $2.1 million. So we are going to pay more if these 
ships are used. Then it goes on to specific requirements.

       Compensation under this section shall not be less than the 
     contractor's commercial market charges for like 
     transportation resources; shall include all the contractor's 
     costs associated with provision and use of the contractor's 
     commercial resources to meet emergency requirements; in the 
     case of a charter of an entire vessel; shall be in addition 
     to and shall not in any way reflect amounts payable under 
     section 652.

  So where the Senator from Alaska is wrong is that there are charges 
above and beyond the $2.1 million when our ships are called to be used.
  Let me repeat what my amendment deals with--fair and reasonable 
costs. More importantly, ``all the contractor's costs associated with 
provision'' obviously includes the war bonuses, and these 
extraordinarily high war bonuses were $15,700 for one seaman in the 
Persian Gulf war compared to $300 for the regular military.
  Now, let us suppose the Senator from Alaska were right about those 47 
ships, that this corporate welfare is going to subsidize these 
companies that are making extreme amounts of profits. Then we have all 
the other vessels that the Department of Defense can call on and will 
call on to meet our national security needs, and this bill does not 
apply to those. In those instances, obviously this bill does not apply, 
but they will get war bonuses. Moreover, there is no place in this bill 
that says war bonuses are not going to be paid to the employees on 
those 47 ships. So my amendment goes to the heart of this issue, to 
establish equity between our regular military people and our seafarers.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair,
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. The answer is simple, in my opinion. What we have is a 
situation where today the only thing we have available to us in the 
event of war or emergency is to contract once again with foreign 
shipping. We did that in the Persian Gulf war. As I said, we paid 50 
percent to 100 percent more on the total charter price.
  This bill is an attempt to change that concept and make available to 
us the U.S.-flag ships already crewed, ready to serve, and ready to go 
in harm's way because of their contractual commitments. We had foreign 
ships that would not enter the war zone. We had foreign crews that 
deserted their ships as they were going into the Persian Gulf.
  We need a program to give us the capacity to continue to serve our 
fighting men and women when they are abroad. The impact of this bill is 
to provide a system to in effect have a standby charter. It is very 
similar to the reserve fleet we have for the airlines. The civil air 
reserve program provides us the aircraft. And just as in this case 
those people who fly civilian planes into harm's way get war bonuses, 
they get special bonuses, because, as the Senator from Hawaii points 
out, they have no rights to any of the benefits that are available to 
those people who serve in the military should they be harmed when they 
are in harm's way.

  What we are doing here now would authorize $100 million annually for 
sustainment sealift. That is $250 million less than the funded levels 
before and $150 million less than it is today --$250 million less than 
it was during the Persian Gulf period, $150 million less than the 
existing program today.
  The Senator's amendment is an attempt to destroy a program that is 
designed to save $150 million from the program as it stands today.
  Now, we are going to pay these companies to reserve these vessels for 
our use in the event of war. The contracts that the Senator has 
mentioned are subject to approval by the Secretary of Defense. The 
payments that would be made will be made on an equitable basis, and 
they will be subject to annual review by the Appropriations Committee 
which I hope to chair.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I would seek knowledge about how much time is remaining 
on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Frahm). The Senator from Iowa has 1 
minute 45 seconds, the Senator from Hawaii has 49 seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will use the remainder of my time right now and leave 
the last word to the opponents of the amendment.
  First of all, I think everybody heard my response to the original 
statement of the Senator from Alaska in opposition to my amendment. I 
came back and said that the bill provides for compensation, return of 
the cost, plus profit, under what we are told is a fair and reasonable 
rate. It covers all costs, and so that includes war bonuses.
  He went on in his last remarks to speak about how great the bill is. 
So I think the absence of comment on my rebuttal speaks for itself; my 
point is that under this bill these war bonuses are 50 times as high as 
the men in the regular military get. Maybe the issue here is that we 
are not paying enough to regular Navy and Army, Air Force, and Marine 
personnel who are in harm's way on the battlefield and we ought to be 
paying them more than what we are, so that they are not getting 50 
times less than what the seafarers are getting. But, at least we should 
not have this extraordinary difference between the two.

  So, consequently, in my closing seconds I remind people the 
conservative fiscal group Citizens Against Government Waste, the 
National Taxpayers Union, and the Citizens for a Sound Economy feel 
that this amendment is a justified amendment to bring commonsense 
budgeting, expenditure of money, commonsense use of the taxpayers' 
money to public policy on maritime issues.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we only use these vessels for the time 
they are actually in the war zone under this contract. As the Senator 
from Hawaii

[[Page S11064]]

says, we pay people by the day rather than by the lifetime. I agree 
with the Senator from Iowa, we ought to compensate our people in the 
military who go in harm's way more than we do, but we set up a very 
complex system here to take care of the people who are actually harmed 
in the military. We set up a different system for people who enter 
harm's way for a very short period of time and we have no further 
responsibility to them for any injuries they might sustain, as far as 
that is concerned.
  All of the costs of this bill are subject to rejection by the 
Secretary of Defense at the time the ships will be called up. He could 
decline to use these ships and once again go back to trying to use 
foreign ships if they were available to us at a reasonable cost. There 
are no foreign ships available to us anywhere near the cost of this 
bill.
  So I have moved to table this. I hope Senators will not be misled by 
this concept that, somehow or another, conservatives oppose this bill. 
This is a very fair bill to us and to the people who might be put in 
harm's way in order to serve the defense of our country.
  I move to table, Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 5391, offered by the Senator from Iowa, Senator 
Grassley. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
Helms], the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack], the Senator from Delaware 
[Mr. Roth], and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], the 
Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], and the Senator from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kerry] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 77, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 296 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Ashcroft
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Coats
     Faircloth
     Frahm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Kassebaum
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Smith

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Helms
     Kerry
     Mack
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Roth
     Thomas
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 5391) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. If there are amendments to be disposed of, we might be 
able to dispose or review them at this time. We have seen no other 
amendment today. We know the Senator from Iowa may have other 
amendments.
  May I inquire if any other Senator has an amendment to this bill? We 
would like to know if any other Senator has an amendment at this time.
  Mr. INOUYE. Not at this time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise as a proud cosponsor of the 
Maritime Security Act. I urge my colleagues to give their support to 
this important bill.
  This bill is critical for America's future. This bill is about our 
national security. A strong, vibrant merchant marine is absolutely 
critical to our national defense and our economic security. We need to 
ask ourselves one simple question, do we want to have a American 
shipping industry in the 21st century? The answer is an unequivocal 
yes.
  Time and time again, we have seen the critical role our merchant 
marine has played. In World War II, it was our merchant marine--our 
``heroes in dungarees'' who braved Nazi U-boats in the Atlantic and 
Japanese submarines in the Pacific in order to save Western 
civilization at a cost of over 6,000 merchant mariners who lost their 
life. The casualty rate for merchant mariners in World War II was 
second only to the Marine Corps.
  In Korea, and Vietnam, our merchant marine kept the supply lines open 
for our fighting forces and never let them down. In Desert Storm, 
almost 80 percent of the cargo was transported on American ships with 
American crews. Our merchant marine became the ``steel bridge'' to our 
men and women in Saudi Arabia. General Schwarzkopf talked about how 
important the merchant marine was in sustaining our troops with needed 
supplies. And had we gone into an escalated ground war our merchant 
marine would have been even more important.
  In Bosnia, United States mariners were used to activate the Ready 
Reserve ships to aid peacekeeping efforts. Mr. President, history has 
taught us one thing, we cannot rely on foreign countries with foreign 
crews to transport our military cargo in time of war. This is why the 
Defense Department strongly supports this bill.
  But this legislation is more than keeping merchant marine viable in 
times of crisis it is about keeping our shipyards open, and ensuring 
that there will always be American ships moving American cargo across 
our oceans.
  We cannot allow America's economy to be held hostage to the whims of 
foreign shipping companies or in some cases, foreign governments. In 
addition, our merchant marine fleet must compete with ships that fly 
``flags of convenience.'' Two-thirds of all merchant ships fly under 
flags of convenience.
  Without the Maritime Security Program, American ships will be unable 
to compete against foreign ships that are heavily subsidized or state-
owned. In addition, ``flag of convenience'' ships do not have to comply 
with American environmental or safety standards giving foreign ships 
another advantage.
  Our merchant marine provides good jobs at good wages and we have a 
responsibility to keep the American flag flying over the oceans of the 
world. That's why we need the Maritime Security Act--to give our 
merchant marine a fighting chance in today's shipping climate.
  Finally, Madam President, this bill makes sense for the American 
taxpayer. Compared to the present maritime program, the Maritime 
Security Act will cut costs by more than 50 percent. If this bill is 
not adopted, taxpayers could pay even more if the Defense Department 
was forced to build its own military sealift fleet.
  Madam President, when the world makes a 911 call to America, we must 
be ready. We must have a merchant marine ready to defend our national 
security and our economic security. I urge my colleagues to give their 
strong support to this legislation.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois would like to have time to make a statement. I ask unanimous 
consent the Senator have 5 minutes as in morning business while we try 
to work out this agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  
                            ____________________