[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 145 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S11174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  SUPPORT OF THE FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION REGARDING JAPANESE PORT 
                               PRACTICES

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I will just use this time to make a 
comment about a resolution that is soon to be introduced in a 
bipartisan fashion, dealing with trade practices between our country 
and the country of Japan. As many may have recognized recently in the 
news, we have been involved in a very long and very serious dispute 
with the country of Japan regarding access, opening up their ports to 
our industries the same way that our American ports are open to 
Japanese ships when they call on United States ports here in this 
country. This dispute has been going on for a number of years. It has 
gotten to be very, very serious.
  We will soon be introducing a resolution. We have talked to Chairman 
Helms and Majority Leader Lott and our Democratic leader, Tom Daschle. 
I know Senator Hollings is very interested in this as well. We worked 
on a resolution, which will be introduced, which will commend the 
administration and also the Federal Maritime Commission for their 
efforts to date in bringing this 15-year problem with the Japanese port 
practices to a successful conclusion. Since the press and many of my 
colleagues have already adequately described the history of the 
Japanese port practices, I am not going to repeat it here. But I would 
like to make a few comments on what has happened.
  First, I think it is very important from this Senator's perspective 
to recognize that we have been able to work for a successful and 
satisfactory conclusion of this problem because of the strong, 
independent action that the Federal Maritime Commission was able to 
take. As an independent agency, the Federal Maritime Commission has the 
flexibility to carry out policies that are good for America without 
having to go through a number of steps and consultations with agencies 
within our Government that sometimes actually impede the process of 
quickly and appropriately making decisions that must be made. Because 
of its independent status, it was able to take this action in a way 
that should bring about what I think will be a satisfactory conclusion.
  The second point I would like to make is I think it is appropriate at 
this time to recognize the decision of our U.S. Trade Representative, 
Charlene Barshefsky, last year, to refuse to commit the United States 
to an inadequate GATS maritime agreement. Had the United States 
accepted that proposal last year, which was a so-called standstill 
proposal, these same Japanese port barriers would have been 
grandfathered in and would have been recognized as the international 
law of the land. The Federal Maritime Commission, including the rest of 
the U.S. Government, would have then been powerless to do anything 
about them except to try to negotiate them away during subsequent 
rounds of talks with the WTO starting in the year 2000. No agreement is 
better than a bad agreement. This is a clear example that what the U.S. 
Trade Representative did at that time was appropriate and proper.
  Finally, I believe any agreement on the port practices dispute 
involving the United States and the country of Japan must include two 
fundamental points: First, a collection of fines to the extent it shows 
other countries around the world, not only Japan, that the United 
States is very serious about reciprocal market access and compliance 
with our laws; and, second, a vigilant, continued monitoring and 
enforcement by the Federal Maritime Commission of the changes in port 
practices promised by the Government of Japan. Both of these two 
elements are absolutely essential for any type of credible agreement. 
The Federal Maritime Chairman, Hal Creel, the Federal Maritime 
Commissioners, Ming Hsu, Del Won, Joe Scroggins and their staffs are to 
be commended for their extraordinary efforts to resolve this matter in 
a firm and fair manner. Likewise, I commend our State Department 
Undersecretary for Economic Affairs Stu Eisenstadt and his staff. They 
are to be commended for their perseverance in this matter.
  Now is not the time, however, for congratulations. We are not quite 
there yet. Negotiations are continuing. But with additional fortitude, 
consumers and carriers and their customers, both in Japan and the 
United States, will soon enjoy the fruits of our labors. We have come 
too far to settle for any type of mediocre agreement. We cannot and 
should not give up now. I think a solid resolution of this issue is 
feasible and I expect one to be concluded in a reasonable amount of 
time.
  Mr. President, if no one else is seeking recognition, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________