[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 29 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2078-S2088]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. DeWine):

  S. 412. A bill to provide for a national standard to prohibit the 
operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated individuals; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                     THE SAFE AND SOBER STREETS ACT

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that, if 
enacted, will go a long way toward reducing the deadly combination of 
drinking and driving. I am proud to stand with Senator Mike DeWine of 
Ohio in introducing this bill. The Safe and Sober Streets Act of 1997 
sets a national illegal blood alcohol content [BAC] limit of .08 
percent for drivers over 21 years of age. The bill gives States that 
have a limit above .08 BAC, 3 years to adopt .08 laws. States that fail 
to enact this limit will have a percentage of their highway 
construction funds withheld.
  Mr. President, drunk driving continues to be a national scourge that 
imposes tremendous suffering on the victims of drunk driving accidents 
and their loved ones. In 1995, drunk driving increased for the first 
time in a decade. That year, 17,274 people were killed in alcohol-
related crashes. Every one of those deaths could have been prevented, 
had the driver decided to call for a ride, handed the keys to a friend, 
or did anything other than taking the wheel.
  Every 30 minutes someone in America--a mother, husband, child, 
grandchild, brother, sister--dies in an alcohol-related crash. The 
numbers are increasing. Our highways are turning into death traps and 
our concrete clover leaves into killing fields.
  Mr. President, we have made progress over the past few decades in the 
fight against drunk driving. In 1982, 53 percent of motor vehicle 
fatalities involved alcohol; today, alcohol-involved motor vehicle 
crashes is 40.5 percent. In 1984, I authored the bill that President 
Ronald Reagan signed into law to increase the drinking age to 21. Since 
1975, 21 drinking age laws have saved roughly 15,700 lives. And, 2 
years ago, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law a zero 
tolerance bill with sanctions, making it illegal for drivers under 21 
years of age to drive with any amount of alcohol in their system.
  While that shows promise, we know we must do more--17,274 lives lost 
is 17,274 too many. Instituting a national standard for impaired 
driving at .08 BAC is the next logical step in the fight against drunk 
driving.
  There are those who ask why the standard for impaired driving should 
be .08 BAC. But I think the better question is: why should the standard 
be as high as .10? We know that any amount of alcohol affects motor 
skills and driving behavior to some degree. A 1991 study by the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that each .02 increase 
in the BAC of a driver with nonzero BAC, nearly doubles the risk of 
being in a fatal crash. This means that the risk a driver faces begins 
much earlier than when his or her blood alcohol content is at .10 or 
.08, after the first or second drink. In fact, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] reports that in single vehicle 
crashes, the relative fatality risk of drivers with BAC's of .05 and 
.09 is over 11 times greater than for drivers with a BAC of zero.
  Mr. President, .08 BAC is not an insignificant level. A 170 lb. male 
must consume four and a half drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach to 
reach .08 BAC. This is not social drinking. While most States have .10 
BAC as their legal limit, it is actually at .08 BAC where driving 
skills are seriously compromised. At that level, the vast majority of 
drivers are impaired when it comes to critical driving tasks. Braking, 
steering, speed control, lane changing, and divided attention are all 
compromised at .08 BAC.

  Thirteen States have .08 BAC limits, and many industrialized 
countries have .08 BAC limits or lower. Canada, Great Britain, Austria, 
and Switzerland have .08 BAC limits. France and The Netherlands have a 
.05 BAC limit. They adopted these laws because they know that

[[Page S2079]]

they work. They work for these reasons:
  First, .08 BAC laws have proven to reduce crashes and fatalities. 
Most States that have adopted the .08 BAC level have found a measurable 
drop in impaired driving crashes and fatalities. A study conducted by 
Ralph Hingson, ScD. and published in the American Journal of Public 
Health showed that those States that adopted .08 BAC laws experienced a 
16-percent decline in the proportion of fatal crashes involving fatally 
injured drivers whose BAC were .08 or higher. And, those same States 
experienced an 18-percent decline in the proportion of fatal crashes 
involving drivers whose BAC was .15 or higher. That means that not only 
did the rates decrease for overall drinking and driving, but also for 
drivers who were extremely impaired. This same study concluded that if 
.08 BAC were adopted nationwide, 500 to 600 lives would be saved 
annually. That alone should be enough to convince all of us that this 
should be a national standard.
  Second, .08 BAC laws deter driving after drinking. Crash statistics 
show that even heavy drinkers, who account for a high percentage of DWI 
arrests, are less likely to drink and drive because of the general 
deterrent effect of the .08 BAC.
  All of these facts, Mr. President, show us that .08 BAC needs to be a 
national standard, not just an option. Different standards lead to 
different perceptions, and in this case these differences can be 
deadly. In regions with high interstate traffic, a driver should not be 
considered ``impaired'' in one State, and then is legally sober by 
simply crossing a border. Pedestrians, passengers, and safe drivers 
should be protected no matter in which part of our nation they are.
  Mr. President, we know that .08 BAC laws work. We know that .08 BAC 
saves lives. It is incumbent upon us to make sure that .08 BAC laws are 
adopted. That's why my bill gives States 3 years to adopt .08 BAC laws. 
If a State does not meet that deadline, the Secretary of Transportation 
will withhold 5 percent of a State's total Interstate Maintenance, 
National Highway System, and Surface Transportation Program funding 
combined in fiscal year 2001, and 10 percent for each year thereafter 
until that State adopts the .08 BAC limit.
  Mr. President, sanctions work. While incentive grant programs allow 
States to decide whether to pass laws on their own, they are 
notoriously underfunded and States pay little attention. Since the 
inclusion of the .08 BAC limit as an incentive criteria, only seven 
States have passed laws due to that incentive. The Federal Government 
has a role to play to ensure that our highways and roads are safe, and 
that drunk driving is decreased. The public is on our side. We must not 
back down.
  Mr. President, .08 BAC limits save lives. This bill, if enacted into 
law, will work. I urge all my colleagues to join in the fight to 
decrease drunk driving, to make our roadways safer, and most important, 
to provide comfort to those victims of drunk driving and their families 
that the Federal Government stands behind them in the memories of their 
loved ones.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, according to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, there were 17,274 alcohol-related traffic 
fatalities in 1995. Each year, 1 million people are injured in alcohol-
related traffic crashes. Alcohol is the single greatest factor in motor 
vehicle deaths and injuries.
  It is estimated that alcohol-related crashes cost society over $45 
billion every year, when you count up items like emergency and acute 
health care costs, long-term care and rehabilitation, police and 
judicial services, insurance, disability and workers' compensation, 
lost productivity, and social services for those who cannot return to 
work and support their families. Just one alcohol-related fatality is 
estimated to cost society $950,000. The cost of each alcohol-related 
injury averages $20,000.


                           fixing the problem

  The legislation we are introducing today would enact nationally a 
strategy that has been proven to work against alcohol-impaired 
driving--making it per se illegal to have a .08 level of blood alcohol 
content [BAC] when driving.
  An illegal per se law makes it illegal in and of itself to drive with 
an alcohol concentration measured at or above the established legal 
level. Forty-eight States have established a per se law. Thirty-five 
States have established per se laws at .10 BAC. Thirteen others have 
established the law at .08 BAC.
  Virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at .08 BAC. 
Laboratory and on-road tests show that the vast majority of drivers, 
even experienced drivers, are significantly impaired at .08 BAC with 
regard to critical driving tasks such as braking, steering, lane 
changing, judgment, and divided attention. The risk of being in a crash 
rises with each BAC level, but rises very rapidly after a driver 
reaches or exceeds .08 compared to drivers with no alcohol in their 
systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has 
concluded that in single-vehicle crashes, the relative risk for drivers 
with BAC's between .05 and .09 is over 11 times greater than for 
drivers with no alcohol in their systems.
  The .08 laws reduce the incidence of impaired driving at .08. 
However, they reduce even more the incidence of impaired driving at 
high BAC's over .15.
  Most States with a .08 law have found that it has helped decrease the 
incidence of alcohol-related fatalities. In California, NHTSA found 
that the State experienced a 12-percent reduction in alcohol-related 
fatalities. A recent study conducted by a professor at Boston 
University compared the first five States to lower their BAC limit with 
five nearby States with a .10 limit. Overall, the .08 States 
experienced a 16 percent reduction in the proportion of fatal crashes 
with a fatally injured driver whose BAC was .08 or higher, as well as 
an 18 percent reduction in crashes where the fatally injured driver's 
BAC was .15 or higher. The study concluded that if all States lowered 
their BAC limits to .08, alcohol-related highway deaths would decrease 
by 500-600 per year.
  Furthermore, .08 laws make it easier to arrest and convict drivers 
with BAC's of .10 or .11 because these are no longer borderline cases.
  Laws establishing a .08 per se limit serve as a powerful deterrent to 
drinking and driving--sending a message that the State is getting 
tougher on drunk driving, and making people think twice about getting 
behind the wheel. I strongly support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Breaux and Mr. 
        Gorton):
  S. 414. A bill to amend the Shipping Act of 1984 to encourage 
competition in international shipping and growth of U.S. imports and 
exports, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.


                 the OCEAN SHIPPING REFORM ACT OF 1997

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, last Congress, we made substantial 
progress toward enacting ocean shipping reform. The House passed a bill 
and, under the leadership of Senators Lott and Pressler, we in the 
Senate were presented with a very workable framework for ocean shipping 
reform. I am pleased to make it the framework upon which we base the 
bill which Senators Lott, Gorton, Breaux, and I are introducing today. 
It is my hope that we can develop the consensus necessary to pass this 
measure in a timely way.
  The next step in this process is the hearing later this month before 
the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, which I 
chair. I am looking forward to hearing from those who will be impacted 
by our legislative efforts. Ninety-five percent of U.S. foreign 
commerce is transported via ocean shipping. Half of this trade, which 
is carried by container liner vessels with scheduled service and is 
regulated under the Shipping Act of 1984, is affected by these reforms.
  This legislation represents an important opportunity to ease the hand 
of regulation on a significant sector of commerce, and eliminate a 
regulatory agency altogether. Our bill terminates the Federal Maritime 
Commission and consolidates remaining maritime regulatory 
responsibilities into a renamed Surface Transportation Board. Thus, we 
will eliminate one regulatory agency and improve another by making its 
mission more reflective of the shipping world where commerce moves 
intermodally--over rail, road, and ocean.
  This bill allows for greater flexibility in service contracting by 
shippers and

[[Page S2080]]

ocean common carriers, which will permit freight to move at the most 
competitive prices while we continue to protect against discriminatory 
practices. To this end, we continue to require a form of tariff 
publication. However, it is much more flexible than current tariff 
filing. Tariffs become effective upon publication through a private 
system, not the Government, and tariff changes do not require 
Government approval. This puts the maritime industry on similar footing 
as other transportation industries which we have deregulated in recent 
years, providing carriers with much greater rate flexibility. At the 
same time, we preserve protections required to counter the effects of 
ocean carrier antitrust immunity and foreign carrier involvement in 
this segment of commerce.
  I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to pass this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 414

       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 
     1997'' .

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

        Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, this 
     Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on March 
     1, 1998.
            TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1984

     SEC. 101. PURPOSE.

       Section 2 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1701) 
     is amended by--
       (1) striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph (2);
       (2) striking ``needs.'' in paragraph (3) and inserting 
     ``needs; and''; and
       (3) adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(4) to promote the growth and development of United 
     States exports through competitive and efficient ocean 
     transportation and by placing a greater reliance on the 
     marketplace.''.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 3 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 
     U.S.C. App. 1702) is amended by--
       (1) striking paragraph (5) and redesignating paragraph (4) 
     as paragraph (5);
       (2) inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) `Board' means the Intermodal Transportation Board.'';
       (3) striking ``the government under whose registry the 
     vessels of the carrier operate;'' in paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``a government;'';
       (4) striking paragraph (9) and inserting the following:
       ``(9) `deferred rebate' means a return by a common carrier 
     of any portion of freight money to a shipper as a 
     consideration for that shipper giving all, or any portion, of 
     its shipments to that or any other common carrier over a 
     fixed period of time, the payment of which is deferred beyond 
     the completion of service for which it is paid, and is made 
     only if the shipper has agreed to make a further shipment or 
     shipments with that or any other common carrier.'';
       (5) striking ``in an unfinished or semifinished state that 
     require special handling moving in lot sizes too large for a 
     container'' in paragraph (11);
       (6) striking ``paper board in rolls, and paper in rolls.'' 
     in paragraph (11) and inserting ``paper and paper board in 
     rolls or in pallet or skid-sized sheets.'';
       (7) striking ``conference, other than a service contract or 
     contract based upon time-volume rates,'' in paragraph (14) 
     and inserting ``conference'';
       (8) striking ``conference.'' in paragraph (14) and 
     inserting ``conference and the contract provides for a 
     deferred rebate arrangement.'';
       (9) striking ``carrier.'' in paragraph (15) and inserting 
     ``carrier, or in connection with a common carrier and a water 
     carrier subject to subchapter II of chapter 135 of title 49, 
     United States Code.''.
       (10) striking paragraph (17) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (18) through (27) as paragraphs (17) through (26), 
     respectively;
       (11) striking paragraph (18), as redesignated, and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(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; and
       ``(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.'';
       (12) striking paragraph (20), as redesignated and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(20) `service contract' means a written contract, other 
     than a bill of lading or a receipt, between one or more 
     shippers and an individual ocean common carrier or an 
     agreement between or among ocean common carriers in which the 
     shipper or shippers makes a commitment to provide a certain 
     volume or portion of cargo over a fixed time period, and the 
     ocean common carrier or the agreement commits to a certain 
     rate or rate schedule and a defined service level, such as 
     assured space, transit time, port rotation, or similar 
     service features. The contract may also specify provisions in 
     the event of nonperformance on the part of any party.'';
       (13) striking paragraph (22), as redesignated, and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(22) `shipper' means--
       ``(A) a cargo owner;
       ``(B) the person for whose account the ocean transportation 
     is provided;
       ``(C) the person to whom delivery is to be made;
       ``(D) a shippers' association; or
       ``(E) an ocean freight forwarder, as defined in paragraph 
     (18)(B) of this section, that accepts responsibility for 
     payment of all charges applicable under the tariff or service 
     contract.''.
       (b) Special Effective Date.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (a) take effect on the date of enactment, except 
     that the amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) take 
     effect on January 1, 1999.

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

       (a) Ocean Common Carriers.--Section 4(a) of the Shipping 
     Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1703(a)) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``operators or non-vessel-operating common 
     carriers;'' in paragraph (5) and inserting ``operators;'';
       (2) striking ``and'' in paragraph (6) and inserting ``or''; 
     and
       (3) striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
       ``(7) discuss and agree upon any matter related to service 
     contracts.''.
       (b) Marine Terminal Operators.--Section 4(b) of that Act 
     (46 U.S.C. App. 1703(b)) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``(to the extent the agreements involve ocean 
     transportation in the foreign commerce of the United 
     States)''; and
       (2) striking ``arrangements.'' in paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``arrangements, to the extent that such agreements 
     involve ocean transportation in the foreign commerce of the 
     United States.''.

     SEC. 104. AGREEMENTS.

       Section 5(b) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1704(b)) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (2) striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
       ``(8) provide that any member of the conference may take 
     independent action on any rate or service item upon not more 
     than 5 calendar days' notice to the conference and that, 
     except for exempt commodities not published in the conference 
     tariff, the conference will include the new rate or service 
     item in its tariff for use by that member, effective no later 
     than 5 calendar days after receipt of the 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 tariff 
     provision for that rate or service item; and
       ``(9) prohibit the conference from--
       ``(A) prohibiting or restricting the members of the 
     conference from engaging in negotiations for individual 
     service contracts under section 8(c)(3) of this Act with 1 or 
     more shippers;
       ``(B) requiring a member of the conference to disclose the 
     existence of a confidential individual service contract under 
     section 8(c)(3) of this Act, or a negotiation on an 
     individual service contract under section 8(c)(3) of this 
     Act, except when the conference enters into negotiations with 
     the same shipper; and
       ``(C) issuing mandatory rules or requirements affecting 
     individual service contracts under section 8(c)(3) of this 
     Act, except as provided in subparagraph (B).

     A conference may issue voluntary guidelines relating to the 
     terms and procedures of individual service contracts under 
     section 8(c)(3) of this Act if the guidelines explicitly 
     state the right of members of the conference not to follow 
     the guidelines.''.

     SEC. 105. EXEMPTION FROM ANTITRUST LAWS.

       (a) In General.--Section 7 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 
     U.S.C. App. 1706) is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``or publication'' in paragraph (2) of 
     subsection (a) after ``filing'';
       (2) inserting ``Federal Maritime'' before ``Commission'' in 
     paragraph (6) of subsection (a);
       (3) striking ``or'' at the end of subsection (b)(2);
       (4) striking ``States.'' at the end of subsection (b)(3) 
     and inserting ``States; or''; and
       (5) adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
       ``(4) to any loyalty contract.''.
       (b) Special Effective Date.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (a) take effect on the date of enactment except 
     the amendment made by paragraph (2) of subsection (a) takes 
     effect on January 1, 1999.

     SEC. 106. TARIFFS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 8 of the 
     Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1707) is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``new assembled motor vehicles,'' after 
     ``scrap,'' in paragraph (1);
       (2) striking ``file with the Commission, and'' in paragraph 
     (1);

[[Page S2081]]

       (3) striking ``inspection,'' in paragraph (1) and inserting 
     ``inspection in an automated tariff system,'';
       (4) striking ``tariff filings'' in paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``tariffs'';
       (5) striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1)(D);
       (6) striking ``loyalty contract,'' in paragraph (1)(E);
       (7) striking ``agreement.'' in paragraph (1)(E) and 
     inserting ``agreement; and'';
       (8) adding at the end of paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(F) include copies of any loyalty contract, omitting the 
     shipper's name.''; and
       (9) striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Tariffs shall be made available electronically to any 
     person, without time, quantity, or other limitation, through 
     appropriate access from remote locations, and a reasonable 
     charge may be assessed for such access. No charge may be 
     assessed a Federal agency for such access.''.
       (b) Service Contracts.--Subsection (c) of that section is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Service Contracts.--
       ``(1) In general.--An individual ocean common carrier or an 
     agreement between or among ocean common carriers may enter 
     into a service contract with one or more shippers subject to 
     the requirements of this Act. The exclusive remedy for a 
     breach of a contract entered into under this subsection shall 
     be an action in an appropriate court, unless the parties 
     otherwise agree.
       ``(2) Agreement service contracts.--Except for service 
     contracts dealing with bulk cargo, forest products, recycled 
     metal scrap, new assembled motor vehicles, waste paper, or 
     paper waste, each contract entered into under this subsection 
     by an agreement shall be filed confidentially with the 
     Commission, and at the same time, a concise statement of its 
     essential terms shall be published and made available to the 
     general public in tariff format, and those essential terms 
     shall be available to all shippers similarly situated. The 
     essential terms shall include--
       ``(A) the origin and destination port ranges in the case of 
     port-to-port movements, and the origin and destination 
     geographic areas in the case of through intermodal movements;
       ``(B) the commodity or commodities involved;
       ``(C) the minimum volume;
       ``(D) the line-haul rate;
       ``(E) the duration;
       ``(F) service commitments; and
       ``(G) the liquidated damages for nonperformance, if any.
       ``(3) Individual service contracts.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (a) of this section and paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection, service contracts entered into under this 
     subsection between 1 or more shippers and an individual ocean 
     common carrier--
       ``(A) may be made on a confidential basis;
       ``(B) are not required to be filed with the Commission; and
       ``(C) shall be retained by the parties to the contract for 
     3 years subsequent to the expiration of the contract.'';
       (c) Rates.--Subsection (d) of that section is amended by--
       (1) striking ``30 days after filing with the Commission.'' 
     in the first sentence and inserting ``21 calendar days after 
     publication.'';
       (2) striking ``less than 30'' in the next sentence and 
     inserting ``less than 21 calendar''; and
       (3) striking ``publication and filing with the 
     Commission.'' in the last sentence and inserting 
     ``publication.''.
       (d) Marine Terminal Operator Schedules.--Subsection (e) of 
     that section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Marine Terminal Operator Schedules.--A marine 
     terminal operator may make available to the public a schedule 
     of rates, regulations, and practices, including limitations 
     of liability for cargo loss or damage, pertaining to 
     receiving, delivering, handling, or storing property at its 
     marine terminal. Any such schedule made available to the 
     public shall be enforceable as an implied contract, subject 
     to section 10 of this Act, without proof of actual knowledge 
     of its provisions.''.
       (e) Automated Tariff System Requirements; Form.--Subsection 
     (f) of that section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Regulations.--The Commission shall by regulation 
     prescribe the requirements for the accessibility and accuracy 
     of automated tariff systems established under this section. 
     The Commission may, after periodic review, prohibit the use 
     of any automated tariff system that fails to meet the 
     requirements established under this section. The Commission 
     may not require a common carrier to provide a remote terminal 
     for access under subsection (a)(2). The Commission shall by 
     regulation prescribe the form and manner in which marine 
     terminal operator schedules authorized by this section shall 
     be published.''.

     SEC. 107. AUTOMATED TARIFF FILING AND INFORMATION SYSTEM.

       Section 502 of the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement 
     Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1707a) is repealed.

     SEC. 108. CONTROLLED CARRIERS.

       Section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1708) 
     is amended by--
       (1) striking ``filed with the Commission'' in the first 
     sentence of subsection (a) and inserting a comma and ``or 
     charge or assess rates,'';
       (2) striking ``or maintain'' in the first sentence of 
     subsection (a) and inserting ``maintain, or enforce'';
       (3) striking ``disapprove'' in the third sentence of 
     subsection (a) and inserting ``prohibit the publication or 
     use of''; and
       (4) striking ``filed by a controlled carrier that have been 
     rejected, suspended, or disapproved by the Commission'' in 
     the last sentence of subsection (a) and inserting ``that have 
     been suspended or prohibited by the Commission'';
       (5) striking ``may take into account appropriate factors 
     including, but not limited to, whether--'' in subsection (b) 
     and inserting ``shall take into account whether the rates or 
     charges which have been published or assessed or which would 
     result from the pertinent classifications, rules, or 
     regulations are below a level which is fully compensatory to 
     the controlled carrier based upon that carrier's actual costs 
     or upon its constructive costs. For purposes of the preceding 
     sentence, the term `constructive costs' means the costs of 
     another carrier, other than a controlled carrier, operating 
     similar vessels and equipment in the same or a similar trade. 
     The Commission may also take into account other appropriate 
     factors, including but not limited to, whether--'';
       (6) striking paragraph (1) of subsection (b) and 
     redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as paragraphs (1), 
     (2), and (3), respectively;
       (7) striking ``filed'' each place it appears in subsection 
     (b) and inserting ``published or assessed'';
       (8) striking ``filing with the Commission'' in subsection 
     (c) and inserting ``publication'';
       (9) striking ``Disapproval.--'' in subsection (d) and 
     inserting ``Prohibition of Rates.--Within 120 days after the 
     receipt of information requested by the Commission under this 
     section, the Commission shall determine whether the rates, 
     charges, classifications, rules, or regulations of a 
     controlled carrier may be unjust and unreasonable.'' ;
       (10) striking ``filed'' in subsection (d) and inserting 
     ``published or assessed'';
       (11) striking ``may issue'' in subsection (d) and inserting 
     ``shall issue'';
       (12) striking ``disapproved.'' in subsection (d) and 
     inserting ``prohibited.'';
       (15) striking ``60'' in subsection (d) and inserting 
     ``30'';
       (16) inserting ``controlled'' after ``affected'' in 
     subsection (d);
       (17) striking ``file'' in subsection (d) and inserting 
     ``publish''.
       (18) striking ``disapproval'' in subsection (e) and 
     inserting ``prohibition'';
       (19) inserting ``or'' after the semicolon in subsection 
     (f)(1);
       (20) striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of subsection 
     (f); and
       (21) redesignating paragraph (5) of subsection (f) as 
     paragraph (2).

     SEC. 109. PROHIBITED ACTS.

       (a) Section 10(b) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 
     App. 1709(b)) is amended by--
       (1) striking paragraphs (1) through (3);
       (2) redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (1);
       (3) inserting after paragraph (1), as redesignated, the 
     following:
       ``(2) provide service in the liner trade that--
       ``(A) is not in accordance with the rates contained in a 
     tariff published or a service contract entered into under 
     section 8 of this Act unless excepted or exempted under 
     section 8(a)(1) or 16 of this Act; or
       ``(B) is under a tariff or service contract which has been 
     suspended or prohibited by the Commission under section 9 or 
     11a of this Act;'';
       (4) redesignating paragraphs (5) through (8) as paragraphs 
     (3) through (6), respectively;
       (5) striking paragraph (9) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (10) through (16) as paragraphs (7) through (13), 
     respectively;
       (6) in paragraph (7), as redesignated, inserting ``except 
     for service contracts,'' before ``demand,'';
       (7) in paragraph (9), as redesignated --
       (A) inserting ``port, class or type of shipper, ocean 
     freight forwarder,'' after ``locality,''; and
       (B) inserting a comma and ``except for service contracts,'' 
     after ``deal or'';
       (8) striking ``a non-vessel-operating common carrier'' each 
     place it appears in paragraphs (11) and (12), as 
     redesignated, and inserting ``an ocean freight forwarder'';
       (9) striking ``sections 8 and 23'' in paragraphs (11) and 
     (12), as redesignated, and inserting ``sections 8 and 19'';
       (10) striking ``paragraph (16)'' in the matter appearing 
     after paragraph (13), as redesignated, and inserting 
     ``paragraph (13)''; and
       (11) inserting ``the Commission,'' after ``United States,'' 
     in such matter.
       (b) Section 10(c)(5) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 
     App. 1709(c)(5)) is amended by inserting ``as defined by 
     section 3(18)(A) of this Act,'' before ``or limit''.
       (c) Section 10(d)(3) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 
     App. 1709(d)(3)) is amended by striking ``subsection (b)(11), 
     (12), and (16)'' and inserting ``subsections (b)(8), (9), and 
     (13)''.

     SEC. 110. COMPLAINTS, INVESTIGATIONS, REPORTS, AND 
                   REPARATIONS.

       Section 11(g) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1710(g)) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``section 10(b)(5) or (7)'' and inserting 
     ``section 10(b)(3) or (5)''; and
       (2) striking ``section 10(b)(6)(A) or (B)'' and inserting 
     ``section 10(b)(4)(A) or (B).''.

[[Page S2082]]

     SEC. 111. FOREIGN SHIPPING PRACTICES ACT OF 1988.

       Section 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 
     (46 U.S.C. App. 1710a) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``non-vessel-operating common carrier,'' in 
     paragraph (1) and inserting ``ocean freight forwarder,'';
       (2) striking ``non-vessel-operating common carrier 
     operations,'' in paragraph (4);
       (3) by inserting ``and service contracts'' after 
     ``tariffs'' each place it appears in subsection (e)(1)(B);
       (4) by striking ``filed with the Commission'' in subsection 
     (e)(1)(B); and
       (5) by striking ``section 13(b)(5) of the Shipping Act of 
     1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1712(b)(5)'' in subsection (h) and 
     inserting ``section 13(b)(6) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 
     App. U.S.C. 1712(b)(6))''.

     SEC. 112. SUBPOENAS AND DISCOVERY.

       Section 12(a)(2) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 
     App. 1711 (a)(2)) is amended by striking ``evidence.'' and 
     inserting ``evidence, including individual service contracts 
     described in section 8(c)(3) of this Act.''.

     SEC. 113. PENALTIES.

       (a) Section 13(a) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 
     App. 1712(a)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following: ``The amount of any penalty imposed upon a common 
     carrier under this subsection shall constitute a lien upon 
     the vessels of the common carrier and any such vessel may be 
     libeled therefor in the district court of the United States 
     for the district in which it may be found.''.
       (b) Section 13(b) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 
     App. 1712(b)) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``section 10(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), or (8)'' in 
     paragraph (1) and inserting ``section 10(b)(1), (2), or 
     (6)'';
       (2) redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as 
     paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively;
       (3) inserting before paragraph (5), as redesignated, the 
     following:
       ``(4) If the Commission 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 12 of this Act, the Commission 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 Commission, 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 U.S.C. App. 91).''; 
     and
       (4) striking ``paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)'' in paragraph 
     (6), as redesignated, and inserting ``paragraphs (1), (2), 
     (3), and (4)''.
       (c) Section 13(f)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 
     App. 1712(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``or (b)(4)'' and 
     inserting ``or (b)(2)''.

     SEC. 114. REPORTS AND CERTIFICATES.

       Section 15 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1714) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``and certificates'' in the section heading;
       (2) striking ``(a) Reports.--'' in the subsection heading 
     for subsection (a); and
       (3) striking subsection (b).

     SEC. 115. EXEMPTIONS.

       Section 16 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1715) is amended by striking ``substantially impair effective 
     regulation by the Commission, be unjustly discriminatory, 
     result in substantial reduction in competition, or be 
     detrimental to commerce.'' and inserting ``result in 
     substantial reduction in competition or be detrimental to 
     commerce.''.

     SEC. 116. AGENCY REPORTS AND ADVISORY COMMISSION.

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

     SEC. 117. OCEAN FREIGHT FORWARDERS.

       Section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1718) is amended by--
       (1) striking subsection (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 act 
     as an ocean freight forwarder.'';
       (2) redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively;
       (3) 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--
       ``(A) shall be available to pay any judgment for damages 
     against an ocean freight forwarder arising from its 
     transportation-related activities under section 3(18) of this 
     Act, or any order for reparation issued pursuant to section 
     11 or 14 of this Act, or any penalty assessed pursuant to 
     section 13 of this Act; and
       ``(B) may be available to pay any claim against an ocean 
     freight forwarder arising from its transportation-related 
     activities under section 3(18) of this Act that is deemed 
     valid by the surety company after providing the ocean freight 
     forwarder the opportunity to address the validity of the 
     claim.
       ``(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) striking ``a bond in accordance with subsection 
     (a)(2)'' in subsection (c), as redesignated, and inserting 
     ``a bond, proof of insurance, or other surety in accordance 
     with subsection (b)(1)'';
       (5) striking ``forwarder'' in paragraph (1) of subsection 
     (e) and inserting ``forwarder, as described in section 
     3(18),'';
       (6) striking ``license'' in paragraph (1) of subsection (e) 
     and inserting ``license, if required by subsection (a),'';
       (7) striking paragraph (3) of subsection (e), as 
     redesignated, and redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph 
     (3); and
       (8) adding at the end of subsection (e), as redesignated, 
     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 5 calendar days, to take 
     independent action on any level of compensation paid to an 
     ocean freight forwarder, as so defined; or
       ``(B) agree to limit the payment of compensation to an 
     ocean freight forwarder, as so defined, to less than 1.25 
     percent of the aggregate of all rates and charges which are 
     applicable under a tariff and which are assessed against the 
     cargo on which the forwarding services are provided.''.

     SEC. 118. CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, AND LICENSES UNDER PRIOR 
                   SHIPPING LEGISLATION.

       Section 20 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1719) is amended by--
       (1) striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Effects on Certain Agreements and Contracts.--All 
     agreements, contracts, modifications, and exemptions 
     previously issued, approved, or effective under the Shipping 
     Act, 1916, or the Shipping Act of 1984 shall continue in 
     force and effect as if issued or effective under this Act, as 
     amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1997, and all new 
     agreements, contracts, and modifications to existing, 
     pending, or new contracts or agreements shall be considered 
     under this Act, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act 
     of 1997.'';
       (2) inserting the following at the end of subsection (e):
       ``(3) The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1997 shall not 
     affect any suit--
       ``(A) filed before the effective date of that Act; or
       ``(B) with respect to claims arising out of conduct engaged 
     in before the effective date of that Act filed within 1 year 
     after the effective date of that Act.
       ``(4) Regulations issued by the Federal Maritime Commission 
     shall remain in force and effect where not inconsistent with 
     this Act, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 
     1997.''.

     SEC. 119. SURETY FOR NON-VESSEL-OPERATING COMMON CARRIERS.

       Section 23 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1721) is repealed.

     SEC. 120. REPLACEMENT OF FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION WITH 
                   INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD.

       (a) In General.--The Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1701 et seq.) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``Federal Maritime Commission'' each place it 
     appears, except in sections 7(a)(6) and 20, and inserting 
     ``Intermodal Transportation Board'';
       (2) striking ``Commission'' each place it appears 
     (including chapter and section headings), except in sections 
     7(a)(6) and 20, and inserting ``Board''; and
       (3) striking ``Commission's'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Board's''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     take effect on January 1, 1999.
 TITLE II--TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION TO 
                  THE INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD

     SEC. 201. TRANSFER TO THE INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD.

       (a) Change of Name of Surface Transportation Board to 
     Intermodal Transportation Board.--The ICC Termination Act of 
     1995 (Pub. L. 104-88) is amended by striking ``Surface 
     Transportation Board'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Intermodal Transportation Board''.
       (b) Functions of the Federal Maritime Commission.--All 
     functions, powers and duties vested in the Federal Maritime 
     Commission shall be administered by the Intermodal 
     Transportation Board.
       (c) Regulations.--No later than January 1, 1998, the 
     Federal Maritime Commission, in consultation with the Surface 
     Transportation Board, shall prescribe final regulations to 
     implement the changes made by this Act.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998.--
     There is authorized to be appropriated to the Federal 
     Maritime Commission, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1998.
       (e) Commissioners of the Federal Maritime Commission.--
     Subject to the political

[[Page S2083]]

     party restrictions of section 701(b) of title 49, United 
     States Code, the 2 Commissioners of the Federal Maritime 
     Commission whose terms have the latest expiration dates shall 
     become members of the Intermodal Transportation Board. Of the 
     2 members of the Intermodal Transportation Board first 
     appointed under this subsection, the one with the first 
     expiring term (as a member of the Federal Maritime 
     Commission) shall serve for a term ending December 31, 2000, 
     and the other shall serve for a term ending December 31, 
     2002. Effective January 1, 1999, the right of any Federal 
     Maritime Commission commissioner other than those designated 
     under this subsection to remain in office is terminated.
       (f) Membership of the Intermodal Transportation Board.--
       (1) Number of members.--Section 701(b)(1) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by--
       (A) striking ``3 members'' and inserting ``5 members''; and
       (B) striking ``2 members'' and inserting ``3 members''.
       (2) Qualifications.--Section 701(b)(2) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after ``sector.'' the 
     following: ``Effective January 1, 1999, at least 2 members 
     shall be individuals with--
       ``(A) professional standing and demonstrated knowledge in 
     the fields of maritime transportation or its regulation; or
       ``(B) professional or business experience in the maritime 
     transportation private sector, including marine terminal or 
     public port operation.''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on January 1, 1999, except as otherwise 
     provided.
       TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO OTHER SHIPPING AND MARITIME LAWS

     SEC. 301. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 19 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE 
                   ACT, 1920.

       (a) In General.--Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 
     1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 876) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``Federal Maritime Commission'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Intermodal Transportation Board'';
       (2) inserting ``ocean freight'' after ``solicitations,'' in 
     subsection (1)(b);
       (3) striking ``non-vessel-operating common carrier 
     operations,'' in subsection (1)(b);
       (4) striking ``methods or practices'' and inserting 
     ``methods, pricing practices, or other practices'' in 
     subsection (1)(b);
       (5) striking ``tariffs filed with the Commission'' in 
     subsection (9)(b) and inserting ``tariffs and service 
     contracts''; and
       (6) striking ``Commission'' each place it appears 
     (including the heading) and inserting ``Board''.
       (b) Special Effective Date.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (a) take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, except that the amendments made by paragraphs (1) and 
     (6) of that subsection take effect on January 1, 1999.

     SEC. 302. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Public Law 89-777.--The Act of November 6, 1966, (Pub. 
     L. 89-777; 80 Stat. 1356; 46 U.S.C. App. 817 et seq.) is 
     amended by--
       (1) striking ``Federal Maritime Commission'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Intermodal Transportation Board''; 
     and
       (2) striking ``Commission'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Board''.
       (b) Title 28, United States Code, and Cross Reference.--
       (1) Section 2341 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by--
       (A) striking ``Commission, the Federal Maritime 
     Commission,'' in paragraph (3)(A); and
       (B) striking ``Surface'' in paragraph (3)(E) and inserting 
     ``Intermodal''.
       (2) Section 2342 of such title is amended by--
       (A) striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) all rules, regulations, or final orders of the 
     Secretary of Transportation issued pursuant to section 2, 9, 
     37, 41, or 43 of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. App. 802, 
     803, 808, 835, 839, or 841a) or pursuant to part B or C of 
     subtitle IV of title 49 (49 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. or 15101 et 
     seq.);''; and
       (B) striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
       ``(5) all rules, regulations, or final orders of the 
     Intermodal Transportation Board--
       ``(A) made reviewable by section 2321 of this title; or
       ``(B) pursuant to--
       ``(i) section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
     U.S.C. App. 876);
       ``(ii) section 14 or 17 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 
     U.S.C. App. 1713 or 1716); or
       ``(iii) section 2(d) or 3(d) of the Act of November 6, 1966 
     (46 U.S.C. App. 817d(d) or 817e(d));''.
       (c) Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988.--Section 
     10002(i) of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 
     U.S.C. 1710a(i)) is amended by striking ``2342(3)(B)'' and 
     inserting ``2342(5)(B)''.
       (d) Tariff Act of 1930.--Section 641(i) of the Tariff Act 
     of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1641) is repealed.
       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and (c) 
     take effect January 1, 1999.
       (2) The repeal made by subsection (d) takes effect March 1, 
     1998.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan 
legislation that will update, revise and improve upon the Shipping Act 
of 1984. This legislation is a continuation and extension of work 
initiated in the last Congress by Representative Bud Shuster, my friend 
in the House of Representatives and Senator Larry Pressler, then 
chairman of the Senate's Commerce Committee.
  Under the leadership of Senator Pressler, the proposal from the House 
of Representatives was examined through an initial hearing, and it was 
modified to address the concerns expressed by many in the industry. 
Only after a critical review of the key issues and concerns was a 
revised bipartisan amendment to the Senate bill introduced. 
Unfortunately, time ran out in the 104th Congress and the Senate 
Commerce Committee could not hold another hearing on the proposal. 
Still, changes continued to be incorporated into a single new version 
of the amendment, and in the last week of the 104th Congress the 
amendment was placed in the Congressional Record.
  My legislative plan was simple and direct--introduce a bill and then 
hold a hearing so that public input would have a genuine opportunity to 
affect the legislative process. This remains my plan, and that is why I 
used my public ending point in the 104th Congress as my new beginning 
point in the 105th Congress.
  As the process began again in this Congress, we again sought input 
from the maritime world as we prepared this important legislation for 
reintroduction. In the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives was 
the first to act. In the 105th Congress, the Senate will be the first 
to act.
  Mr. President, this explanation of the legislative journey was 
necessary so that my colleagues will have an appreciation of the 
outreach that was pursued by the Senate in its drafting process 
regarding this shipping reform.
  Let me say that I grew up in an active port community. In fact, I 
still live in that port city of Pascagoula. There is nothing in our 
legislative proposal that is intended to harm the onshore maritime 
community. Believe me, I know first hand the challenges faced by ports 
because I have lived with them. I still remember the committee hearing 
on the shipping act last year where I had to give lessons in how to 
pronounce ``Pascagoula.'' On that day, I wanted to make sure people who 
develop and comment on maritime policy know and remember Pascagoula.
  I would like to add one more comment about the development of this 
legislation before I say a few words on what the bill will accomplish. 
The U.S. Coast Guard detailed an officer to the Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee to assist the committee's members and staff on 
both sides of the isle on issues affecting the Coast Guard and the 
maritime world. Last year and part of this year we have had the able 
assistance of Lt. Comdr. Jim Sartucci. He was instrumental in 
collecting comments and in drafting provisions of this proposal in both 
the 104th and now the 105th Congress.
  I have received many unsolicited compliments about Jim's willingness 
to listen and merge in a meaningful way, individual proposals from all 
segments of the maritime world. Everyone that I have encountered has 
told me that Jim was both professional and fair as we worked through 
the process.
  Mr. President, Lieutenant Commander Sartucci has clearly reflected 
great credit upon the Coast Guard, the Commerce Committee, and on this 
legislative proposal.
  Mr. President, we now know how we got to this point in the 
legislative process. There are still two topics that need to be 
addressed today.
  First, why do we need shipping reform and second, how does the bill 
accomplish that reform?
  In just a few minutes, let me explain why we need shipping reform.
  Last year's successful maritime reform effort addressed the critical 
requirement of guaranteeing an American fleet and American crews in the 
context of necessary sealift capabilities for deploying and supporting 
our military forces overseas. Our efforts in shipping reform this year 
focus on the needs of America's ports and Americans who work dockside. 
Both big and little ports. were considered as part of the process. 
Ports with and without cranes.
  Mr. President, last year, I spoke at length with the Honorable Helen

[[Page S2084]]

Delich Bentley, the former Maryland Congresswoman. She has been an 
effective defender of ports and maritime labor for years. She is a true 
champion, and I value her advice. I made a commitment to Helen then and 
I believe it has been honored this year with the legislative language. 
The legislation will provide adequate protection for small ports and 
small shippers. Also, the legislation will ensure that the collective 
power of some industry elements will not be allowed to abuse other 
segments of the industry.
  Having said this, it is time to deregulate the ocean shipping 
industry and to sunset the FMC. The path was started by President 
Reagan back in 1984. Senator Slade Gorton, my colleague and friend, was 
the principal author of this initial step and with his help we took the 
next step when we put together the proposal in the 104th Congress. I am 
very pleased that the author of the original act that we are amending 
has agreed to cosponsor this bill.
  Mr. President, this year Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison will be leading 
the charge to complete this second part of maritime reform. She has a 
clear understanding of what is necessary to strike the delicate balance 
to achieve deregulation without permitting marketplace abuses. She will 
do an excellent job in chairing the hearing and finalizing the 
legislative language for the full Senate.
  Let me be very clear; this proposal only deals with liner shipping, 
basically container ship, legislation--not bulk cargo shipping, which 
represents the other half of U.S. ocean borne trade. Do not let the 
opponents of reform confuse the issue. The already deregulated world of 
bulk cargo shipping is not being disturbed.
  I must also be candid. The challenge is to balance ocean common 
carrier antitrust issues and large ocean carrier and shipper desires 
for more private business relationships with meaningful oversight to 
produce a fair, yet competitive playing field. I believe this 
legislation strikes the right balance.
  I must also say that at the Commerce Committee hearing back in 1995, 
both Senator Breaux and I challenged the witnesses to work with us to 
resolve the concerns we were hearing from our constituents. The 
witnesses and many others did just that. They showed up and 
participated in extensive, good faith negotiations.
  This bill is not antilabor. The shoreside and seafaring unions 
continue to work with us in a constructive manner. Their goal and ours 
is to put in place an ocean shipping framework that eliminates 
inefficient and burdensome regulations, promotes U.S. trade, and in so 
doing, preserves and creates American jobs.
  This bill is not about dealing with just a couple of players in the 
maritime community. Many members of the industry were consulted. We 
provided a genuine opportunity to participate in dialog as we drafted 
this bill. Introduction should not stop the consensus seeking process. 
And, I hope the discussion will continue with Senator Hutchison as she 
prepares for the upcoming hearing and even following the hearing.
  Let me now explain how this legislation accomplishes our goals to 
reform this critical industry.
  This legislation will permit confidential contracting between 
individual ocean common carriers and shippers, but will continue 
current public filing requirements for joint ocean common carrier 
contracts. This action balances the desire to make the U.S. ocean liner 
contracting process consistent with international ocean shipping 
practices and other U.S. transportation modes with the unique 
application of ocean common carrier antitrust immunity in the ocean 
liner shipping industry. At recent meetings held by the Maritime 
Administration on the diversion of cargo from U.S. ports, the current 
U.S. ocean liner shipping system was identified as a contributor to 
this problem. This legislation will help eliminate this U.S. port 
handicap.

  This legislation will retain common carrier tariff enforcement, but 
would eliminate the requirement to file tariffs with the Government. 
Common carriers would be able to take advantage of available modern 
technology by using a World Wide Web home page to satisfy the tariff 
publication requirement. This just makes common sense and reduces the 
cost of doing business while maintaining protections for small 
shippers.
  This legislation will streamline and reform the Federal Maritime 
Commission [FMC], and establish a responsible time line to downsize the 
FMC in accordance with its new mission and merge it with the Surface 
Transportation Board. America will then have a single, centralized, 
independent, Federal agency where the distinct regulatory systems for 
each mode of transportation are monitored and enforced in a coherent 
manner.
  This legislation does much to ensure that America's presence in the 
ocean shipping business is not subjected to unfair foreign rules or 
practices. The recent FMC enforcement actions taken against unfair port 
practices in Japan is an illustration of an essential FMC mission that 
is not performed by other Federal agencies. This mission will continue, 
and I will support it wholeheartedly.
  Let me be clear. This bill will significantly change the regulations 
governing ocean transportation in the foreign commerce of the United 
States while providing Government efficiencies and genuine reforms to 
protect American interests. The changes will strengthen ocean common 
carriers' ability to competitively price their services, in turn, 
making American shippers more competitive.
  Mr. President, the world's transportation community is now, and has 
been for some time, a seamless intermodal world. With this bill our 
Federal Government will finally be able to think and act in an 
intermodal manner. The American people get less Federal micro-
management of our ocean shipping industry while receiving the 
protection of a government agency focused on preserving fair 
competition. An economically efficient, market oriented shipping 
industry provides America an advantage in the global marketplace.
  Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for their attention, and 
I hope they will give serious consideration to becoming a cosponsor to 
this necessary bipartisan legislative reform. Remember this is not just 
a port State matter; it is also an exporting State concern.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Rockefeller, and 
        Mr. Thomas):

  S. 415. A bill to amend the Medicare program under title XVIII of the 
Social Security Act to improve rural health services, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                THE RURAL HEALTH IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Health 
Improvement Act of 1997. This bill makes rural health care more 
convenient, more effective, and more responsive.
  The cornerstone of this bill is an extension of the successful 
medical assistance facility program, known as MAF's. Without the Rural 
Health Improvement Act, MAF will remain only a test program which could 
be discontinued in the future. Passing this legislation will make MAF's 
permanent and nationwide.
  Big Timber, MT, is a good example of how MAF could help out a 
community. It is a small ranching and farming town on the edge of the 
Absaroka mountain range. People in that town of Big Timber say hi and 
chat when they see each other on the street. They are very friendly, 
very down to Earth, very basic. Every year, the town puts on the Big 
Timber rodeo and black powder shoot. Big Timber is a town like many in 
rural Montana.
  A few years back, the hospital in Big Timber had to shut down, as is 
the case with many hospitals in our country. They could not make ends 
meet with the regulations of the current system. But instead of 
watching their health care services leave town, the people of Big 
Timber got together and applied for a MAF waiver.
  I was fortunate enough to be in Big Timber last summer for the grand 
opening of their new MAF building. It was a pretty typical July day in 
Montana, which means it was very hot. But that did not stop the whole 
town from turning out for the dedication ceremony. The MAF Program not 
only saved Big Timber's hospital, but it renewed their sense of 
community spirit. It was wonderful to watch, wonderful to see. Big 
Timber faced the same situation many rural communities face every day. 
They found the solution.
  Rural life has qualities you cannot find in big cities: The crime 
rate is low;

[[Page S2085]]

people go out of their way to help a friend in need; and folks take the 
time to know their neighbors, even if that neighbor happens to live 5 
miles down the road.
  But challenges come with living in such remote surroundings. One of 
the biggest is access to quality health care. Randy Dixon, a 
physician's assistance at Philipsburg MAF, really hit the nail on the 
head when he wrote to me:

       Having arrived in your home State, I am greatly impressed 
     with its magnitude and expanse. However, those same 
     attributes turn into detriments when you are considering 
     access to primary health care. My history and recent 
     acquaintances have taught me that the people of Montana are a 
     tough, resilient people. But those acquaintances also tell me 
     that they have not had consistent, reliable primary care 
     available when that ``toughness'' had a dent or two in it.

  Randy sums up life in rural Montana pretty well, but what he really 
underscores is the importance of rural medical facilities. In Montana, 
vast distances and bad weather are about the only two things you can 
count on. Rural hospitals make up a network that blankets Montana and 
makes access to health care convenient for folks who are isolated by 
distance and weather. When one of these hospitals closes its doors, the 
network falls apart, and people can no longer depend on access to 
health care.
  Jordan, MT, is another example. Without an MAF, the nearest health 
facility would be Miles City, over 80 miles away. And whether you have 
a serious medical emergency or simply need a routine checkup, 80 miles 
is too far, often, to travel.
  Rural communities often don't have the patient base or the money to 
support a fully functional hospital. Yet, the care that these hospitals 
provide is irreplaceable.
  Essentially, Mr. President, there are a lot of communities like 
Jordan, like Big Timber, Ekalaka, and other small communities in 
Montana and other parts of our Nation. Under my bill, an MAF can 
provide emergency services during the day and have someone on call at 
night. In a small town, that means that the hospital can be opened at a 
moment's notice. Folks can still have immediate access to emergency 
care, and rural hospitals do not have some of the same burdens and 
overhead expenses and all the redtape and regulations that the big 
hospitals, unfortunately, often have.
  MAF makes exceptions to rules like that.
  The whole point of this legislation is to make the MAF waiver 
permanent, so that hospitals do not have to apply year after year for 
MAF status. Rather, once that status is determined, that status can be 
permanent and people in rural communities can rest a little more 
assured they are going to have pretty good health care.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Rural Health 
Improvement Act of 1997, which I joined in introducing today with 
Senators Baucus, Rockefeller, and Thomas.
  We've heard a lot lately, Mr. President, about how hospitals are 
doing better financially than they have in years. ProPAC's recent 
report to the Congress indicated that the average prospective payment 
margins for hospitals are becoming healthy again. In 1995, the average 
PPS margin was 7.9 percent; only 3 years before, the average PPS 
margins were negative.
  This has truly been a remarkable turnaround, and I applaud hospitals 
for their success at improving their efficiency. We must remember, 
however, that anytime we use average statistics, there are those which 
are below the average, as well as those are above it.
  In my State of Iowa, as in many areas of the United States, small 
rural hospitals are essential links in the chain of health care access. 
For these small hospitals, however, economic survival is a constant 
struggle.
  There are limits to what we here in Congress can do to help these 
hospitals survive. But I believe that we have an obligation to do our 
best to give rural Americans a fighting chance at access to health 
care. And at the very least, we must not hinder small rural hospitals 
as they try to serve their essential role.
  Unfortunately, our Medicare policies have often been an obstacle, 
rather than a help. Our inflexible rules and reimbursement policies 
have made it even harder for small, rural hospitals to survive. I am 
pleased to report that the legislation we have introduced today is an 
important step toward making the Medicare Program a true partner with 
these hospitals.
  This bill expands two successful demonstration projects: the Montana 
Medical Assistance Facility project, and the Essential Access Community 
Hospital, and Rural Primary Care Hospital projects. These projects have 
been limited to eight States, with Iowa not among them. Mr. President, 
I believe that the purpose of demonstration projects is to see what 
works. Well, the results from the eight States have been very good. It 
is high time to make the same help available to hospitals in all 50 
States. That is what this bill will do.
  This legislation allows the designation of certain hospitals as 
critical access hospitals. To qualify, hospitals must have average 
lengths of stay of not more than 96 hours, referral relationships with 
larger hospitals, and 15 or fewer beds, which may be used either for 
inpatient care or as swing beds. The bill also imposes a general 
distance requirement of 35 miles from another hospital, but this 
requirement need not be met if the State certifies that the hospital is 
a necessary provider of services to residents in the area. The ability 
of States to waive the 35-mile rule is crucial to hospitals in Iowa, 
where the distances between communities are not as vast as in some 
Western states.
  Critical access hospitals will be given greater flexibility in 
meeting Medicare regulations that were designed for larger hospitals. 
Most important, the legislation will help these hospitals to make their 
transition from acute care to less expensive primary care. This is why 
the General Accounting Office has found that the demonstration project 
has not only assisted the hospitals, and the rural Americans they 
serve, but that it has actually saved money for the Medicare Program.
  Mr. President, as you might expect, this bill will make a big 
difference in Iowa. In 1995, 43 Iowa hospitals had six or fewer 
inpatients per day. Of these 43, 15 had negative operating margins. 
Many of these are not county hospitals, and thus are not subsidized by 
county tax revenues. These hospitals are in a real bind, and many will 
benefit from this legislation. Some of the small towns which are likely 
to be helped are Hawarden, Primghar, Eldora, Rock Valley, Corning, and 
Rock Rapids. For these Iowa communities, and for many others across 
America, the Rural Health Improvement Act of 1997 could be a lifesaver. 
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues 
from Montana, Iowa, and Wyoming, Senators Baucus, Grassley, and Thomas, 
in re-introducing a very important bill for rural communities. My 
colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, has long been a strong advocate 
of rural health care issues and I am very pleased to be working with 
him on such an important issue to rural America. Since Medicare's 
enactment in 1965, the Medicare Program has played a vital role in 
making sure senior citizens living in rural areas have adequate access 
to health care services. A disproportionate number of the elderly live 
in rural areas. As a result, rural hospitals are heavily reliant on the 
Medicare Program.
  Our legislation will provide some basic assistance to help rural 
hospitals keep their doors open. The changes we are recommending are 
based on carefully studied pilot projects in West Virginia, Montana, 
and other States, and we think it is time to apply some very good ideas 
to the rest of the Nation. I am pleased that President Clinton's budget 
would also expand Essential Access Community Hospital [EACH] and the 
Rural Primary Care Hospital [RPCH] program. We are very interested in 
seeing the specific details of his proposal.
  Mr. President, most rural hospitals have only one choice when faced 
with shrinking occupancy rates, declining Medicare and Medicaid 
reimbursement rates, and intense market pressures to lower their costs: 
close their doors. That is where our bill steps in. When being a full-
service hospital is no longer viable, our bill gives them a way to 
become what we call a critical access hospital--a way to preserve 
essential primary care and emergency health care services for rural 
America.
  West Virginia is one of only seven States that is currently allowed 
to operate a EACH/RPCH Program. Since we

[[Page S2086]]

introduced our bill in the 104th Congress, the EACH/RCPH Program, once 
again, proved to be the salvation for a rural West Virginia county that 
was on the brink of losing its access to primary care and emergency 
care services. Because of the availability of the EACH/RCPH Program in 
West Virginia, the local residents of Calhoun County, WV were able to 
merge and reorganize two existing, but financially strapped, health 
care providers, the Minnie Hamilton Primary Care Center and Calhoun 
General Hospital. A neighboring hospital, Stonewall Jackson, stepped in 
and offered financial and administrative assistance during this very 
difficult period of time. As a result, Calhoun County now has a 
thriving and financially stable health care provider that is meeting 
the health care needs of its local residents. This is huge relief to 
the residents of Calhoun County.

  Mr. President, our bill is modeled on two separate, ongoing rural 
hospital demonstration projects, the EACH-RPCH Program, the other is 
the Montana Medical Assistance Facility [MAF] Program. The basic 
concept is to place limits on the number of licensed beds and patient 
length of stays in the participating rural hospitals, and in exchange, 
hospitals receive Medicare payment rates that will cover their patient 
care costs, along with badly needed relief from regulations that are 
intended for full-scale, acute care hospitals.
  We believe, based on work by the General Accounting Office, that our 
legislation will wind up saving the Medicare Program money. We are 
encouraging the development of rural health networks, to help small, 
rural hospitals save money and improve quality by working more closely 
with larger, full-service hospitals.
  I am very proud to note that West Virginia has been a leader in 
helping small, rural hospitals figure out how to adapt and cope with 
rapid changes in the economics of health care. Six hospitals in West 
Virginia are federally designated RPCH hospitals and six hospitals are 
federally designated EACH hospitals. I know that many other rural 
States and rural hospitals are anxious to enjoy the benefits of this 
program.
  Our legislation draws on the lessons learned from the pilot programs, 
improves on them, and expands them so that rural hospitals and patients 
all across America will have the same benefits. Our legislation will 
give other States the same opportunities already available in 
California, Colorado, Kansas, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, 
and West Virginia through the EACH/RPCH Program and in Montana through 
the MAF Program.
  Our legislation is targeted at the 1,186 rural hospitals nationwide 
with fewer than 50 beds. While these hospitals are essential to 
assuring access to health care services in their local communities, 
these hospitals account for only 2 percent of total Medicare payments 
to hospitals. In return for certain limits, rural hospitals can count 
on Medicare payments and regulatory relief to fit their circumstances. 
They can form new relationships with health care providers in their 
community, and larger hospitals farther away, so patients have the kind 
of access to care where it is best to get it.
  Mr. President, as we move to adopt Medicare reforms in the Finance 
Committee later this year, I will be working to make sure that 
commonsense reforms to help rural hospitals are also adopted.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 417. A bill to extend energy conservation programs under the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act through September 30, 2002; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


          the energy policy and conservation act authorization

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this bill is very simple, yet it 
is extremely important to our Nation's energy security. This bill 
contains the authorizations for two vital energy security measures, the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and U.S. participation in the International 
Energy Agency, which will expire at the end of this fiscal year. This 
bill would extend those two vital authorities, as well as several other 
important DOE programs, through 2002.
  For every year in recent memory, we have authorized this act on a 
year-to-year basis, and we have faced a potential crisis as these 
authorizations go unrenewed until the very end of the Congress. We 
always seem to end up facing a situation where the President does not 
have authority to withdraw oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if 
an energy emergency occurs.
  Further, if these authorities are not renewed, our Government does 
not have authority to participate in International Energy Agency 
emergency actions in an international energy emergency. There will be 
no antitrust exemption available to our private oil companies to allow 
them to cooperate with the IEA and our Government to respond to the 
crisis. These provisions are not controversial in and of themselves, 
but this bill has a tendency to become a vehicle to address concerns 
over unrelated issues.
  In an attempt to avoid the annual crisis, I am introducing 
legislation today that will renew these authorities for 5 years. The 
bill also provides for the leasing of extra capacity in our reserve 
facilities and changes to the antitrust exemption in the bill to 
comport with the policies adopted by the IEA at our request.
  Although it appears to be easy for some to disregard these dangers, 
recent events have underscored exactly how precarious this Nation's 
energy security is. Events in the Middle East clearly demonstrate the 
instability of the region that we rely on to supply the oil that keeps 
this Nation moving.
  The situation is only getting worse. Since the establishment of the 
Department of Energy, our reliance on imported oil has passed 50 
percent, and is expected to rise to 71 percent by 2015. The OPEC 
countries are steadily regaining lost market share and it is projected 
to exceed 50 percent by 2000. The U.S. economy appears to be as exposed 
as it was in the early 1970's to supply disruptions and losses from 
monopoly oil pricing. We are talking about jobs and people's lives. In 
the face of these numbers, DOE has no real plan to stop our slide into 
near complete dependence on foreign sources of oil, and the President's 
budget contains a proposal to sell 67 million barrels of oil from the 
SPR in the year 2002.
  I am dismayed by a recent trend toward using the SPR as a piggy bank 
to pay for other programs. The oil in the SPR cost an average of $27 
per barrel. We have sold it for anywhere from $18 to $20 per barrel. 
Buying high and selling low never makes sense. We're like the man in 
the old joke who was buying high and selling low who claimed that he 
would make it up on volume.
  In the face of our growing oil dependence, and the administration's 
proposal to sell oil from the SPR, I can't resist noting the 
administration's opposition to the production of our domestic oil 
resources. The administration does not support the domestic storage or 
production of oil. They do not appear to like the reality that this 
Nation will continue to need petroleum. However, reality doesn't cease 
to be reality because we ignore it.
  We have already invested a great deal of taxpayer money in these 
stockpiles. As proven during the Persian Gulf war, the stabilizing 
effect of an SPR drawdown far outstrips the volume of oil sold. The 
simple fact that the SPR is available can have a calming influence on 
oil markets. The oil is there, waiting to dampen the effects of an 
energy emergency on our economy. However, if we don't ensure that there 
is authority to use the oil when we need it, we will have thrown those 
tax dollars away.
  So, the first step is to ensure that our emergency oil reserves are 
fully authorized and available to dampen the effects of the most severe 
supply disruptions. We are talking about people's lives and jobs. The 
least we can do is try to limit the possibility that this measure will 
be held hostage to political ambition.
  I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation. I 
would also like to introduce, by request, proposed legislation 
transmitted by the administration. I ask unanimous consent that the 
administration's transmittal letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S2087]]




                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 1997.
     Hon. Al Gore,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is a legislative proposal 
     cited as the Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 
     1997. This proposal would amend and extend certain 
     authorities in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) 
     which either have expired or will expire September 30, 1997, 
     as well as a weatherization provision in the Energy 
     Conservation and Production Act.
       The EPCA was enacted in 1975. Title I authorizes creation 
     and maintenance of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (the 
     Reserve), which is the Nation's first line of defense in 
     responding to domestic and international oil supply 
     disruptions. Title II contains authorities essential for 
     maintaining a continuing commitment to the International 
     Energy Program administered by the International Energy 
     Agency (IEA) in Paris. Effective participation by the United 
     States in the IEA is critical to assuring our allies of our 
     mutual energy emergency preparedness in the event of a severe 
     interruption of international oil supplies. Title III 
     contains authorities for certain energy efficiency and 
     conservation programs.
       As a result of changes in the overall energy environment 
     since the Reserve was authorized in 1975, the Department is 
     conducting a comprehensive review of Reserve policy. That 
     review will be completed during fiscal year 1997. If the 
     review results in recommendations for changes in title I of 
     EPCA, the Department will submit a legislative proposal under 
     separate cover. This would include proposals relating to 
     title I similar to those submitted to the Congress in October 
     1995.
       Since Reserve and other authorities under EPCA expire on 
     September 30, 1997, it is necessary to extend, until 
     September 30, 1998, authorization for EPCA titles I and II, 
     and several provisions in title III, as well as the 
     Department's weatherization program in title IV of the Energy 
     Conservation and Production Act. The Administration also is 
     proposing amendments to certain provisions in EPCA title II 
     to ensure that the legal authorities for U.S. oil company 
     participation in the IEA's emergency preparedness programs 
     are fully in accord with current U.S. and IEA emergency 
     response policy. The United States has long advocated a 
     policy at the IEA of coordinated drawdown of government-
     controlled oil stockpiles (e.g., the Reserve) to respond to 
     international oil supply disruptions, with reference on the 
     IEA's emergency oil allocation program as a last resort. This 
     is now IEA's accepted policy. Unfortunately, EPCA's current 
     antitrust provisions do not enable U.S. oil companies to take 
     part in the full range of IEA oil crisis planning activities. 
     The Administration's proposed bill would amend the present 
     limited antitrust defense available to U.S. oil companies to 
     enable them to assist the IEA in planning or implementing a 
     coordinated drawdown of government-controlled oil stockpiles.
       The proposed legislation and a sectional analysis are 
     enclosed. The Office of Management and Budget advises that 
     submission of this proposal to the Congress would be in 
     accord with the President's program.
       We look forward to working with the Congress toward 
     enactment of this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles B. Curtis,
                                                 Acting Secretary.

                           Section-by-Section


        section 2. energy policy and conservation act amendments

       Section 2 of the bill would amend the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act.
       Paragraph (1) would amend section 166 of EPC to authorize 
     appropriations necessary to implement the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve for fiscal year 1998.
       Paragraph (2) would amend section 181 of EPCA by extending 
     the expiration date of title I, parts B and C from September 
     30, 1997 to September 30, 1998.
       Paragraph (3) is a technical correction which would amend 
     section 251(e)(1) by striking section ``252(1)(l)'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``252(k)(l).''
       Paragraph (4) would amend section 252 of EPCA, which makes 
     available to United States oil companies a limited antitrust 
     defense and breach of contract defense for actions taken to 
     carry out a voluntary agreement or plan of action to 
     implement the ``allocation and information provisions'' of 
     the Agreement on an International Energy Program (``IEP''). 
     These limited defenses are now available only in connection 
     with the companies' participation in planning for and 
     implementation of the IEP's emergency oil sharing and 
     information programs. The amendment would extend the section 
     252 antitrust defense (but not the breach of contract 
     defense) to U.S. companies when they assist the International 
     Energy Agency (``IEA'') in planning for and implementing 
     coordinated drawdown of government-owned or government-
     controlled petroleum stocks. In 1984, largely at the urging 
     of the United States, the IEA's Governing Board adopted a 
     decision on ``Stocks and Supply Disruptions'' which 
     established a framework for coordinating the drawdown of 
     member countries' government-owned and government-controlled 
     petroleum stocks in those oil supply disruptions that appear 
     capable of causing severe economic harm, whether or not 
     sufficient to activate the IEP emergency oil sharing and 
     information programs. During the 1990-91 Persian Gulf crisis, 
     the IEA successfully tested the new coordinated stockdraw 
     policy.
       Subparagraph (4)(A) would amend subsection 252 (a) and (b) 
     of EPCA. These sections would be amended by substituting the 
     term ``international emergency response provisions'' for the 
     term ``allocation and information provisions of the 
     international energy program.'' The new term establishes the 
     scope of oil company activities covered by the antitrust 
     defense and includes actions to assist the IEA in 
     implementing coordinated drawdown of petroleum stocks.
       Subparagraph (4)(B) would amend paragraph 252(d)(3) of EPCA 
     to clarify that a plan of action submitted to the Attorney 
     General for approval must be as specific in its description 
     of proposed substantive actions as is reasonable ``in light 
     of circumstances known at the time of approval'' rather than 
     ``in light of known circumstances.''
       Subparagraph (4)(C) would amend paragraph 252(e)(2) of EPCA 
     to give the Attorney General flexibility in promulgating 
     rules concerning the maintenance of records by oil companies 
     related to the development and carrying out of voluntary 
     agreements and plans of action.
       Subparagraph 4(D) would amend paragraph 252(f)(2) of EPCA 
     to clarify that the antitrust defense applies to oil company 
     actions taken to carry out an approved voluntary agreements 
     as well as an approved plan of action.
       Subparagraph 4(E) would amend section 252(h) of EPCA to 
     strike the reference to section 708(A) of the Defense 
     Production Act of 1950, which was repealed by Public Law 102-
     558 (October 28, 1992), and the reference to the Emergency 
     Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, which expired in 1981.
       Subparagraph 4(F) would amend subsection 252(i) of EPCA to 
     require the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission 
     to submit reports to Congress and to the President on the 
     impact of actions authorized by section 252 on competition 
     and on small businesses annually rather than every six 
     months, except during an ``international energy supply 
     emergency,'' when the reports would be required every six 
     months.
       Subparagraph 4(G) would amend paragraph 252(k)(2) of EPCA 
     by substituting a definition of the term ``international 
     emergency response provisions'' for the present definition of 
     ``allocation and information provisions of the international 
     energy program.'' The new term, which establishes the scope 
     of company actions covered by the antitrust defense, covers 
     (A) the allocation and information provisions of the IEP and 
     (B) emergency response measures adopted by the IEA Governing 
     Board for the coordinated drawdown of stocks of petroleum 
     products held or controlled by governments and complementary 
     actions taken by governments during an existing or impending 
     international oil supply disruption, whether or not 
     international allocation of petroleum products is required by 
     the IEP.
       Subparagraph 4(H) would amend subsection 252(l) of the EPCA 
     to make clear that the antitrust defense does not extend to 
     international allocation of petroleum unless the IEA's 
     Emergency Sharing System has been activated.
       Paragraph (5) would amend section 256(h) of EPCA to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for the 
     activities of the interagency working group and interagency 
     working subgroups established by section 256 of EPCA to 
     promote exports of renewable energy and energy efficiency 
     products and services.
       Paragraph (6) would amend section 281 of EPCA by extending 
     the expiration date of title II from September 30, 1997, to 
     September 30, 1998.
       Paragraph (7) would amend section 365(f)(1) to provide 
     authorization for appropriations in fiscal year 1998 for 
     State Energy Conservation Programs.
       Paragraph (8) would amend section 397 to provide 
     authorization for appropriations in fiscal year 1998 for the 
     Energy Conservation Program for Schools and Hospitals.
       Paragraph (9) would amend section 400BB to extend the 
     authorization for the appropriation for the Alternative Fuels 
     Truck Commercial Application Program to fiscal year 1998.


      section 3. energy conservation and production act amendment

       Section 3 would amend section 422 of the Energy 
     Conservation and Production Act to provide authorization for 
     appropriation for the weatherization program in fiscal year 
     1998.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER:
  S. 418. A bill to close the Lorton Correctional Complex, to prohibit 
the incarceration of individuals convicted of felonies under the laws 
of the District of Columbia in facilities of the District of Columbia 
Department of Corrections, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


              THE LORTON CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX CLOSURE ACT

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is a great pleasure today that I 
introduce the Lorton Correctional Complex Closure Act. For, while a 
small penitentiary with 60 inmates might have been acceptable in rural 
Fairfax County in 1916, when the prison was first established as a 
farming work force, to have over 7,000 inmates in the middle of the 
heavily populated modern area of Fairfax today, this Senator finds 
totally

[[Page S2088]]

unacceptable, legally, environmentally, and in terms of public safety.
  The facts about Lorton clearly demonstrates that it should be 
removed. I say that, Mr. President, having worked on it for some 18 
years that I have been here in the Senate. These facts clearly 
demonstrate that it must be removed in a reasonable period of time, 
recognizing that such removal requires careful planning, not only 
taking into consideration the needs of the people in the communities of 
Virginia, but many other considerations, among them humanitarian needs.
  The current facility is inadequate and unsafe. The facilities now 
lack any institutional control, certainly not that measure of control 
that should be accorded an institution of this importance.
  Also, on the question of rehabilitation, I do not think this facility 
today is serving to rehabilitative purpose, which is a very vital and 
important part of the ability to take people who have finished their 
sentences and equip them to return to society.
  The antiquated management and physical structures mean the taxpayers 
in the District of Columbia get a very poor return on their investment, 
and a considerable part of the cost is directed to the citizens of the 
District of Columbia. With its far too many escapes and disastrous 
pollution record, this facility has continually degraded the quality of 
life for those living in the immediate area. This is the combination of 
facts that compels Congress, in my judgment, to end this unfairness to 
Virginia.
  Now, part of the plan that the President of the United States is 
considering to revitalize the District includes Federal assumption of 
the District's correctional facilities, including those at the Lorton 
Prison Complex in Northern Virginia. The present proposal anticipates 
massive renovation of the existing prison and new construction, as well 
as a cost of nearly $1 billion to the Federal taxpayer.
  Now, Mr. President, that is just not going to happen. I have 
consistently advocated the closing of Lorton prison in its entirety 
throughout my 18 years of Senate service. Several years ago, Mr. 
President, I participated with others on both sides of the aisle, and 
with the House of Representatives, and we secured legislation and 
included initial appropriations to start the relocation of the Lorton 
facility. The mayor at that time and other District of Columbia 
officials refused even to make the first steps toward a site selection. 
We were stonewalled even though Congress had spoken, even though 
Congress had anted up the necessary funds to conduct that site 
selection and to begin the relocation.
  I know of one community in a nearby State that was more than anxious 
to participate in the construction of a major modern facility. District 
officials looked the other way. I do not intend, and I say this 
respectfully to the Senate and the President and his efforts, and I am 
not known around here as one to make threats, but I do not intend to 
abandon my goal to relocate Lorton. I say that again. I do not intend 
to abandon my effort to relocate the Lorton facility.
  I wish to be fair and constructive. Consequently, I wish to make it 
clear that I will be a constructive working partner on the President's 
proposals as they relate to other aspects of the District of Columbia, 
because I believe the Nation's Capital needs the help on a wide range 
of issues. It is my hope to vote in support of a broad relief plan, 
provided, however, that the proposal contains a clear provision which 
is binding on D.C. officials, a provision that has a binding obligation 
on the part of those in the executive branch, the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons and others, to work with the District, to work with other 
jurisdictions on the relocation, if that is necessary. There could be a 
site right in the District: I know of one site that lends itself more 
than adequately to relocation. But unless those clear and binding 
provisions are in there for a relocation within a stipulated and 
reasonable time--and that timetable should be laid out--then I will 
fight this. I will fight this.

  I wish to advise my colleagues that absent such clear plans to remove 
this facility, then I, the senior Senator from Virginia, would be 
forced to utilize to the fullest extent all rules of the U.S. Senate to 
block any proposal relating to the District of Columbia. It is as 
simple as that. I fervently hope I shall not do it, and I will work 
industriously to include that provision.
  I look forward, as I say, to working with my colleagues in the 
Virginia delegation to have Congress finally put Lorton on the road for 
removal and relocation. I will work very closely with my good friend, 
the distinguished Representative from Virginia, Congressman Tom Davis, 
chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the House 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, who has shown incredible 
leadership on this issue. I cannot recall any Member of Congress on 
either side of the aisle who has worked more diligently and more 
conscientiously with very little return, if any, to him politically or 
otherwise, but nevertheless has plowed ahead to show leadership on 
resolving the tough issues relating to the Nation's Capital. Tom Davis 
is to be saluted and commended. I know Senator Robb and Representatives 
Frank Wolf and Jim Moran from Virginia, as well, and the Governor and 
attorney general of Virginia, will do their best. The present Governor 
and attorney general, and hopefully their successors, will do their 
best to make the removal of Lorton a reality in the near future.

                          ____________________