[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12516-S12519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         OCEAN AND COASTAL RESEARCH REVITALIZATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 287, S. 927.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 927) to reauthorize the Sea Grant Program.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1636

            (Purpose: To reauthorize the Sea Grant Program)

  Mr. LOTT. Senator Snowe has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Ms. Snowe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1636.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am offering a manager's amendment with 
Senator Hollings and Senator Chafee to S. 1213, the Oceans Act of 1997. 
The year 1998 has been declared the International Year of the Ocean by 
the United Nations, and around the world scientists, governments, 
nongovernmental organizations, and private citizens are preparing 
activities that recognize the importance of the oceans to all of 
humanity as well as the planet. Passage of the Oceans Act today would 
serve as a very fitting contribution to the Year of the Ocean, 
signifying that the United States is at the forefront of ocean policy, 
and that we as a nation are continuing to strive for the conservation 
and sustainable use of our ocean resources.
  S. 1213, which I cosponsored with Senators Hollings, McCain, Kerry, 
Stevens, and others is intended to address current and future problems 
related to the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes, and to ensure that we 
have a national oceans policy capable of meeting these challenges.
  The bill would create a commission to analyze the full range of ocean 
policy issues facing the Nation, and the way in which the Federal 
Government is currently responding to them through its agencies and 
programs. After completing its analysis, the commission would provide 
recommendations to the President and the Congress on the development of 
a comprehensive, cost-effective policy to address these issues.
  It also requires the President to create an interagency council to 
help improve coordination and cooperation, and eliminate duplication of 
effort among Federal agencies.
  This legislation is based on a law enacted in 1966 which created a 
similar commission known as the Stratton Commission. That commission 
led to the creation of NOAA in 1970, and it helped to shape our public 
policies on these issues in the succeeding years. But the times have 
changed over the past 30 years, and the problems that we face in the 
marine environment have changed as well.
  The manager's amendment which I am proposing today embodies virtually 
all of S. 1213 are reported by the Commerce Committee, but it also 
addresses the concerns of some Senators about the establishment of the 
interagency National Oceans Council. Over the last few days, I have 
worked closely with Senators Chafee, Hollings, and McCain on 
modifications to help ensure that the Council has an appropriate role 
within the administration. It is intended to assist the commission

[[Page S12517]]

with its work, providing information from the appropriate Federal 
agencies as necessary, and to help the President implement the national 
ocean policy that he is charged with developing under the bill. The 
changes that we have agreed to and that are contained in the manager's 
amendment clarify the role of the Council, and establish a sunset 
provision requiring the Council to disband 1 year after the commission 
issues its report. The amendment also makes clear that the Council 
cannot supersede any other existing administration coordination 
mechanisms, or interfere with ongoing Federal activities under existing 
law.
  Mr. President, this is a very good bipartisan bill that is supported 
by the leaders of both the Commerce and Environment and Public Works 
Committees. It will give the United States very important guidance on 
how to prepare for the ocean-related challenges that will face the 
Nation in the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment and the bill as amended.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 927, a bill to 
reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program. First, I offer my 
thanks to Senator Snowe, the primary sponsor of the bill.
  Sea Grant is a results-oriented program that builds bridges among 
Government, academia, and industry, putting information and technology 
from research laboratories into the hands of the people who can really 
use it. The National Sea Grant Program serves as a successful model for 
multidisciplinary research directed at scientific advancement and 
economic development. Sea Grant has improved the competitiveness of the 
Nation's coastal and marine economy by increasing the pool of skilled 
manpower, fostering scientific achievement, facilitating technology 
transfer, and educating the public on critical resource and 
environmental issues.
  Mr. President, the 1966 Stratton Commission outlined a seminal vision 
for the benefits this Nation could derive from the oceans and coasts. 
The Sea Grant Program has played a vital part in realizing that vision. 
Today, Sea Grant researchers are examining important problems affecting 
our marine resources. This research is not just being put on a shelf. 
It is being used to improve aquaculture, market new technologies, 
develop pharmaceuticals, educate our young people, manage fisheries, 
and much more. This legislation, S. 927, will carry Sea Grant into its 
next 30 years by strengthening the Sea Grant Program, improving the 
procedures by which it operates, clarifying the respective roles of the 
Federal Government and the universities that participate in the 
program, and reducing administrative costs. I urge all of my colleagues 
to join me in supporting this important program and the passage of the 
bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 927, the 
Ocean and Coastal Research Revitalization Act of 1997. Last year, 
Congress passed the National Invasive Species Act. S. 927 will enable 
colleges and universities across the country to address the goals of 
the National Invasive Species Act and will foster research on our 
marine and coastal resources. My amendment to include Lake Champlain as 
one of the Great lakes will allow Vermont colleges and universities to 
join the Sea Grant College Program and increase research on the many 
environmental threats to Lake Champlain.
  A recent study shows that the zebra mussels have spread from 4 States 
in 1988 to 20 States this year. The zebra mussel is a prime example of 
what can happen when an exotic species is introduced into an 
environment where it has no natural predators. The zebra mussel, having 
hitchhiked over from Europe, is invading the far reaches of Lake 
Champlain at an alarming rate.
  We Vermonters have come to think of it as great for many reasons 
though: Lake Champlain is vital both environmentally and economically 
to Vermont. Lake Champlain supports a watershed of over 8,200 square 
miles and an economy of over $9 billion in the region. In addition, the 
importance of Lake Champlain spreads throughout the Northeast, since 
residents of New England and the mid-Atlantic States cherish the lake 
and its resources for its recreational, ecological, and scenic values. 
Although Vermonters have always considered Lake Champlain the sixth 
Great Lake, this legislation will now officially recognize Lake 
Champlain as the sixth Great Lake under the Sea Grant Program.
  This designation will allow colleges and universities in the Lake 
Champlain basin to become a Sea Grant college, enabling them to conduct 
vital research on the many invasive species threatening Lake Champlain, 
including zebra mussels, sea lampreys, Eurasian watermilfoil, and water 
chestnut. Inclusion in the National Sea Grant College Program would 
allow Vermont schools to focus greater attention on invasive species, 
but also would help Vermont and New York implement a number of the 
priorities identified in the Lake Champlain Basin Plan signed by our 
Governors this winter.
  As the economic importance of the lake and the population of the 
Champlain Valley has grown, so have the environmental problems of Lake 
Champlain. One of the main environmental issues facing the lake is 
controlling pollution that flows into the lake. In particular, 
increases in the levels of phosphorus have turned parts of Lake 
Champlain green with algae. Runoff from farms and urban streets and 
treated water from sewage plants have caused this increase.
  Historically, scientific efforts on Lake Champlain have lagged behind 
other regions with coastal waters of national significance. Although 
the University of Vermont was one of the original land grant colleges, 
it did not receive Sea Grant college status during the initial 
selections because the Sea Grant Program has been focused on areas with 
marine research needs. Since that time, several new Sea Grant 
designations were made to address critical issues facing the Great 
Lakes.
  Lake Champlain plays an important role in the Great Lakes system, 
connected by hydrologic, geologic, and biological origins. The issues 
facing Lake Champlain represent the emerging issues facing the Great 
Lakes, such as nutrient enrichment, toxic contamination, habitat 
destruction, and fisheries issues. Allowing Vermont to participate in 
the Sea Grant Program would provide an opportunity for the State's 
scientists to compete for badly needed Federal dollars to support lake 
research.
  The University of Vermont and other Vermont colleges are ideally 
situated to attain Sea Grant college status to work on Lake Champlain 
research. These researchers have been participating in lake research 
projects over the past several years, pulling together limited funding 
from numerous sources. Designation as a Sea Grant college will remedy 
this situation. Vermont will be able to improve the long-term water 
quality and biological monitoring on Lake Champlain. This monitoring is 
critical to determine the success of management actions outlined in the 
Lake Champlain Basin Plan. The Sea Grant Program would enable Vermont 
to track toxic substances in the water, sediment, air and biota and 
invasive species.
  I want to thank my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, and her staff 
for their assistance in increasing attention to the environmental 
issues in Lake Champlain.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this legislation reflects an effort to 
reach a compromise within the international ocean shipping industry. It 
reflects a middle ground among the somewhat dissimilar interests of the 
ocean carriers and shippers and shipping intermediaries, as well as the 
interests of U.S. ports and post-related labor interests such as 
longshoremen and truckers. I have worked with Senators Hutchison, Lott, 
and Gorton to craft a compromise allowing us to move forward with 
legislation. I had hoped to be able to move forward with floor 
consideration before we adjourn, but it appears now that we ran out of 
time on this bill. I look forward to taking this bill up early in the 
next session of Congress. It has been very difficult to balance the 
competing considerations affected by this bill. In fact, I would liken 
it to squeezing Jell-O, you push in one direction and objections would 
ooze out in the other direction. However, I feel certain that we are 
close to achieving a workable agreement that all parties can support.
  It is safe to say that our ocean shipping industry affects all of us 
in the United States since 96 percent of our international trade is 
carried by ships,

[[Page S12518]]

but very few of us fully understand the ocean shipping industry. 
International ocean shipping is a half-a-trillion-dollar annual 
industry that is inextricably linked to our fortunes in international 
trade. It is a unique industry, in that international maritime trade is 
regulated by more than just the policies of the United States. In fact, 
it is regulated by every nation capable of accepting vessels that are 
navigated on the seven seas. It is a complex industry to understand 
because of the multinational nature of trade, and its regulation is 
different from any of our domestic transportation industries such as 
trucking, rail, or aviation.
  The ocean shipping industry provides the most open and pure form of 
trade in international transportation. For instance, trucks and 
railroads are only allowed to operate on a domestic basis, and foreign 
trucks and railroads are required to stop at border locations, with 
cargo for points further inland transported by U.S. firms. 
International aviation is subject to restrictions imposed and a result 
of bilateral trade agreements, that is, foreign airlines can only come 
into the United States if bilateral trade agreements provide access 
into the United States. However, international maritime trade is not 
restricted at all, and treaties of friendship, commerce, and navigation 
guarantee the right of vessels from anywhere in the world to deliver 
cargo to any point in the United States that is capable of 
accommodating the navigation of foreign vessels.
  The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is charged with regulating the 
international ocean shipping liner industry. The ocean shipping liner 
industry consists of those vessels that provide regularly scheduled 
services to U.S. ports from points abroad. In large part, the trade 
consists of containerized cargo that is capable of international 
movement. The FMC does not regulate the practices of ocean shipping 
vessels that are not on regularly scheduled services, such as vessels 
chartered to carry oil, chemicals, bulk grain, or coal carriers. One 
might ask why regulate the ocean liner industry, and not the bulk 
shipping industry? The answer is that the ocean liner industry enjoys a 
worldwide exemption from the application of U.S. antitrust laws and 
foreign competition policies. Also, the ocean liner industry is 
required to provide a system of common carriage, that is, our law 
requires carriers to provide service to any importer or exporter on a 
fair, and nondiscriminatory basis.
  The international ocean shipping liner industry is not a healthy 
industry. In general, it is riddled with trade-distorting practices, 
chronic overcapacity, and fiercely competitive carriers. In fact, rates 
have plunged in the transpacific trade to the degree that importers and 
exporters are expressing concerns about the overall health of the 
shipping industry. The primary cause of liner shipping overcapacity is 
the presence of policies designed to promote national-flag carriers and 
also to ensure strong shipbuilding capacity in the interest of national 
security. These policies which are not necessarily economically 
effective include subsidies to purchase ships and to operate ships, tax 
advantages to lower costs, cargo reservation schemes, and national 
control of shipyards and shipping companies. A prime example of 
policies that promote and subsidize a national-flag carrier is one of 
the largest shipping companies in the world, the China Overseas 
Shipping Company [COSCO]. It is operated by the Government of China, 
much in the way the United States Government controls the Navy and is 
not constrained by considerations that plague private sector companies.
  Historically, ocean shipping liner companies attempted to combat rate 
wars resulting from overcapacity by establishing shipping conferences 
to coordinate the practices and pricing policies of liner shipping 
companies. The first shipping conference was established in 1875, but 
it was not until 1916 that the U.S. Government reviewed the conference 
system. The Alexander Committee--named after the then-chairman of the 
House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries--recommended 
continuing the conference system in order to avoid ruinous rate wars 
and trade instability, but also determined that conference practices 
should be regulated to ensure that their practices did not adversely 
impact shippers. All other maritime nations allow shipping conferences 
to exist without the constraints of antitrust or competition laws, and 
presently no nation is considering changes to their shipping regulatory 
policies.
  In the past, U.S. efforts to apply antitrust principles to the ocean 
shipping liner industry were met with great difficulty. Understandably, 
foreign governments objected to applying U.S. antitrust laws instead of 
their own laws on competition policy to their shipping companies. Many 
nations have enacted blocking statutes to expressly prevent the 
application of U.S. antitrust laws to the practices of their shipping 
companies. As a result of these blocking statutes, U.S. antitrust laws 
would only be able to reach U.S. companies and would destroy their 
ability to compete with foreign companies. With the difficulties in 
applying our antitrust laws, U.S. ocean shipping policy has endeavored 
to regulate ocean shipping practices to ensure that the grant of 
antitrust immunity is not abused and that our regulatory structure does 
not contradict the regulatory practices of foreign nations.
  The current regulatory statute that governs the practices of the 
ocean liner shipping industry is the Shipping Act of 1984. The Shipping 
Act of 1984 was enacted in response to changing trends in the ocean 
shipping industry. The advent of intermodalism and containerization of 
cargo drastically changed the face of ocean shipping, and nearly all 
liner operations are now containerized. Prior to the Shipping Act of 
1984, uncertainty existed as to whether intermodal agreements were 
within the scope of antitrust immunity granted to carriers. In 
addition, carrier agreements were subject to lengthy regulatory 
scrutiny under a public interest-type of standard. Dissatisfaction with 
the regulatory structure led to hearings and legislative review in the 
late 1970's and early 1980's. In the wake of passage of legislation 
deregulating the trucking and railroad industry, deregulation of the 
ocean shipping industry was accomplished with the enactment of the 
Shipping Act of 1984.

  The Shipping Act of 1984 continues antitrust immunity for agreements 
unless the FMC seeks an injunction against any agreement it finds ``is 
likely, by a reduction of competition, to produce an unreasonable 
reduction in transportation service or an unreasonable increase in 
transportation cost.'' The act also clarifies that agreements can be 
filed covering intermodal movements, thus allowing ocean carriers to 
more fully coordinate ocean shipping services with shore-side services 
and surface transportation.
  The Shipping Act of 1984 attempts to harmonize the twin objectives of 
facilitating an efficient ocean transportation system while controlling 
the potential abuses and disadvantages inherent in the conference 
system. The Act maintains the requirement that all carriers publish 
tariffs and provide rates and services to all shippers without unjust 
discrimination, thus continuing the obligations of common carriage. In 
order to provide shippers with a means of limiting conference power, 
the Shipping Act of 1984 made three major changes: First, it allowed 
shippers to utilize service contracts, but required the essential terms 
of the contract to be filed and allowed similarly situated shippers the 
right to enter similar contracts; second, it allowed shippers the right 
to set up shippers associations, in order to allow collective cargo 
interests to negotiate service contracts; and third, it mandated that 
all conference carriers had the right to act independently of the 
conference in pricing or service options upon 10 days' notice to the 
conference.
  Amendments to the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, and the passage of the 
Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988, strengthened the FMC's 
oversight of foreign shipping practices and the practices of foreign 
governments that adversely impact conditions facing U.S. carriers and 
shippers in foreign trade. The FMC effectively utilized its trade 
authorities to challenge restrictive port practices in Japan, and after 
a tense showdown convinced the Japanese to alter their practices that 
restrict the opportunity of carriers to operate their own marine 
terminals. The changes that will be required to be implemented under 
this agreement will

[[Page S12519]]

save consumers of imports and exporters trading to Japan, millions of 
dollars, and the FMC deserves praise for hanging tough in what was 
undeniably a tense situation.
  While we were not able to address all concerns about our new ocean 
shipping deregulation proposal I would like to elaborate on the 
progress that has been made toward ultimate Senate passage of 
legislation. I would also like to thank Senators Hutchison, Lott and 
Gorton for their efforts on this bill. Additionally, the following 
staffers spent many hours meeting with the affected members of the 
shipping public and listening to their concerns about our proposal and 
I would like to personally thank Jim Sartucci and Carl Bentzel of the 
Commerce Committee staff, Carl Biersack of Senator Lott's staff, Jeanne 
Bumpus of Senator Gorton's staff, Amy Henderson of Senator Hutchison's 
staff as well as my own staffers, Mark Ashby and Paul DeVeau.
  S. 414, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, and the proposed amendment to 
the committee reported bill, attempt to balance the competing interests 
of those affected by international ocean shipping practices. One of the 
major obstacles to change in this area was the need to provide 
additional service contract flexibility and confidentiality, while 
balancing the need to continue oversight of contract practices to 
ensure against anti-competitive practices immunized from our antitrust 
laws. I think the contracting proposal embodied in S. 414 adequately 
balances these competing considerations. The bill transfers the 
requirements of providing service and price information to the private 
sector, and will allow the private sector to perform functions that had 
heretofore been provided by the Government. The bill broadens the 
authority of the FMC to provide statutory exemptions, and reforms the 
licensing and bonding requirements for ocean shipping intermediaries.
  Importantly, the bill does not change the structure of the Federal 
Maritime Commission. The FMC is a small agency with a annual budget of 
about $14 million. When you subtract penalties and fines collected over 
the past 7 years, the annual cost of agency operations is less than $7 
million. All told, the agency is a bargain to the U.S. taxpayer as it 
oversees the shipping practices of over $500 billion in maritime trade. 
The U.S. public accrues an added benefit when the FMC is able to break 
down trade barriers that cost importers and exporters millions in 
additional costs, as recently occurred when the FMC challenged 
restrictive Japanese port practices.
  The FMC is an independent regulatory agency that is not accountable 
to the direction of the administration. Independence allows the FMC to 
maintain a more aggressive and objective posture when it comes to the 
consideration of eliminating foreign trade barriers.
  S. 414 also provides some additional protection to longshoremen who 
work at U.S. ports. The concerns expressed by U.S. ports and port-
related labor interests revolved around reductions in the transparency 
afforded to shipping contracts, and the potential abuse that could 
occur as a result of carrier antitrust immune contract actions. In 
order to address the concerns of longshoremen who have contracts for 
longshore and stevedoring services, S. 414 sets up a mechanism to allow 
the longshoremen to request information relevant to the enforcement of 
collective bargaining agreements.
  It is my feeling that we have before us a package of needed shipping 
reforms that will allow us to move ahead, and I look forward to passing 
this bill in the next session of Congress.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, 
the bill be considered read a third time and passed, as amended, the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements 
related to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1636) was agreed to.
  The bill (S. 927), as amended, was passed.

                          ____________________