[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.
____________________