[Pages H4335-H4355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

OCEAN SHIPPING REFORM ACT OF 1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2149.

{time} 1531

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
2149) to reduce regulation, promote efficiencies, and encourage
competition in the international ocean transportation system of the
United States, to eliminate the Federal Maritime Commission, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Regula in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is not often that we can bring to the floor a piece
of legislation that can boost the entire United States economy but this
legislation, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, can do just that.
Mr. Chairman, while it is true that by abolishing the Federal
Maritime Commission, which this bill does, we can save about $20
million a year in the Federal expenditures, that really does not tell
the story. The real story here is that by abolishing the Federal
Maritime Commission, by eliminating the tariff filings, we can
stimulate this segment of American transportation to the point that we
can save for America close to $2 billion a year in increased
productivity through increased competition.
Yes, this abolishes the Federal Maritime Commission. Yes, it
eliminates tariff filings, although it requires that such filings be
made public. But it also provides for private contracts. This is at the
heart of the bill, because if we are going to retain antitrust
immunity, which this bill does, and which the shippers were very much
opposed to but in the spirit of compromise agreed to, if we are going
to retain antitrust immunity, then it is crucial that the carriers and
the shippers be able to enter into private contracts.

This is not a new idea. This is an idea which has been proven, and it
has been proven through the Staggers Act, which was the Rail Reform
Act. The railroads have the ability with their shippers to enter into
private contracts, and we all know the great success story of the
revitalization of the railroad industry. The trucking industry has the
ability to enter into private contracts with shippers and carriers. The
aviation industry has the ability to enter into private contracts with
shippers and carriers.
Indeed, every mode of transportation in America, freight
transportation, has the ability to enter into these private contracts
except for ocean carriage, and that is one of the fundamental reforms
that we make today. We say that as all the other modes may do, now
shippers and the carriers in ocean shipping can also enter into private
carriage. It is a critical, fundamental part of the compromise of this
legislation.
Beyond that, we are told by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that
the shipping cartels fix prices and that is what we have had up to this
point in ocean shipping, cartels fixing prices enforced by the Federal
Maritime Commission. We are told by the Department of Agriculture that
that price-fixing amounted to an 18-percent surcharge on the total
ocean transportation cost of agricultural products.
And so indeed by injecting this competition, we are going to be able
to make agriculture more productive. Indeed, we are going to be able to
make virtually all modes that rely on ocean shipping more productive.
It is important to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, the United States is the
only country in the world that maintains an agency to regulate and
enforce Government ocean shipping controls. The time has come to
eliminate the Federal Maritime Commission.
There are several points that served as a basis for the delicate
compromise on this legislation, a compromise which had strong
bipartisan support, indeed was passed out of committee by voice vote
with nary a negative expression against this legislation. Republicans
and Democrats alike cosponsored this legislation and passed it
overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, out of the committee by voice vote.

The agreement was very simple. The shippers agreed that the ocean
carriers

[[Page H4336]]

and the ports would retain their antitrust immunity. That is what the
carriers and the ports got in this compromise, including the authority
to set their prices with antitrust immunity and publish those prices.
In exchange for this fundamental concession by the shippers, the
carriers agreed to accept reforms to instill greater competition among
the carriers. These reforms are the elimination of tariff and contract
filings and enforcement, and the authority for shippers and carriers to
enter into the private contractual arrangements which every other mode
of transportation has. Let me emphasize, seagoing labor, the Seafarers,
the part of organized labor most directly affected by this legislation,
agreed to this compromise. Indeed, we bring this balance to the floor
today.
Let me also emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that originally the bureaucratic
ocean and shipping regime, including tariff filings and compulsory
publication of contract terms, originally was designed to protect
American businesses. But today, however, the ocean transportation
system works against U.S. exporters and importers, and it benefits
those very foreign competitors of U.S. business and foreign flag owners
who dominate the price-fixing cartels. Indeed, these foreign vessel
owners control nearly 85 percent of the regulated ocean shipping.
So we bring to the floor today legislation which is good for America,
legislation which had the strong, strong support, bipartisan support of
virtually every member on the committee. I would urge my colleagues to
support this legislation, this compromise, without amendment, because
if we undo the compromise, then we undo the reforms and the benefits
which are so crucial and critical to the future of American
productivity.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, many writers and historians have described the United
States as an ``Island Nation''. The oceans that have protected us from
foreign invasion are also the highways over which most of this
country's imports and exports must travel to market.
While most people recognize that the coastal cities in our country
grew up around ports, today, every congressional district in the United
States is touched by this linkage to the world market--whether it be
iron ranges in my district, or wheat fields in Kansas. That's why we
must all be concerned about how international shipping is regulated.
The bill now before us would take major steps in shifting the
regulation of international shipping from the Government to the
marketplace. In general, I support this approach. The market can do a
much better job than the Government in promoting efficiencies and low
prices for consumers. That was proved with the successful deregulation
of the domestic airlines, trucking, bus, and railroad industries.
I also support most of the provisions of H.R. 2149, including the
provisions which eliminate the Federal Maritime Commission; prohibit
ocean carrier conferences from restricting the rights of individual
carriers to make contracts with shippers; and eliminate the requirement
that tariffs must be filed with a governmental agency.
However, I believe that the bill goes too far in one important
respect. By combining continued antitrust immunity for conferences of
carriers with a right of these carriers to make secret agreements with
individual shippers, the bill is likely to lead to less competition and
higher rates. Later, I plan to offer an amendment to prevent these
unfortunate consequences by banning secret agreements.
In evaluating the problems with secret agreements, we must be aware
of some basic economic facts about ocean shipping today.
At the end of World War II, the United States had the greatest
commercial fleet in the world to carry this commerce. Today, less than
4 percent of our commerce is transported on U.S.-flag vessels. More
than ever before, we are dependent on foreign vessels owned by foreign
citizens to transport the lifeblood of our Nation. Foreign carriers do
not necessarily have the best interest of United States' citizens at
heart. Foreign carriers can be motivated by their own nationalism,
their business interests, or the interests of their government. Foreign
carriers can operate as an instrument of their country's corporate or
governmental policy. To further these policies, foreign carriers can
set rates which increase the costs of our exporters and lower the
shipping costs of their country's corporations which export to the
United States. Thereby, foreign carriers can place U.S. manufacturers,
even those only serving domestic markets, at a disadvantage in
competing against foreign manufactured goods.
The ability of foreign carriers to create unfair advantages for their
country's exporters will be greatly enhanced if the foreign carriers
are allowed to enter secret agreements with these exporters, with
discriminatory terms. Our shippers will be unaware of these agreements
and have less leverage to obtain comparable agreements.
Secret agreements will also accelerate current trends toward industry
concentration. In this regard, I would like to take a moment to read to
you the views of one of the biggest supporters of H.R. 2140, John
Clancy, the president and CEO of Sea-Land Services, Inc. According to
an interview he granted with World Wide Shipping in September, Mr.
Clancy believe that:

A few giant shipping consortia with global reach and the
freedom to function like contract carriers will dominate the
world's sealanes before the end of the century. He painted a
picture of a maritime environment where a few super-consortia
will control 85-90% of the world's containerships. The
byproduct, he says, is the demise of the niche carrier, the
feeder line and the north-south lines with no other links in
the shipping chain.

The controlling factor in this, according to Mr. Clancy, is the
pending legislation to deregulate the U.S. shipping industry.
I thought the purpose of deregulation legislation was to increase
competition, not to eliminate it. That's the fundamental flaw in H.R.
2149. It lacks balance. Everyone is looking at the quick, short-term
impact--everyone; that is, except Mr. Clancy. He has his eye on the
ball--a short-term cut in rates resulting from secret contracts
under deregulation will drive his competitors into bankruptcy and he
and the other super consortia members will have the market to
themselves, with unlimited ability to control the price of
international shipping--whether it be household goods, food and grain,
raw materials, automobile parts, or clothing.

Secret agreements will be a major weapon enabling Mr. Clancy to
achieve his goals. It will permit large companies to offer lower rates
to larger shippers. If smaller shippers and carriers are unaware of
these deals they will find it difficult to compete. The end result is
likely to be exactly what Mr. Clancy predicts. The demise of the niche
carrier, the feeder line and the north-south lines.
I served on the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries when
the Shipping Act of 1984 was written. One of the fundamental purposes
of the 1984 act was to counterbalance the legalization of international
cartels that have anti-trust immunity by requiring public disclosure of
the agreements between the carriers in the cartel, and the essential
terms of the contracts between the carriers and the shippers. This way
the Government and public will know that ports and manufacturers in the
United States are not being discriminated against. By allowing secret
contracts, this bill eliminates this balance and undermines the concept
of common carriage.
I reiterate that there are good provisions in the Ocean Shipping
Reform Act. There should be less governmental interference in the
marketplace. The Federal Maritime Commission should be eliminated. The
marketplace is a better regulator than the Government. But for the
market to work, there must be daylight in the market. Carriers,
conferences, consortia, and shippers shouldn't be allowed to enter into
secret deals that can harm our ports, manufacturers, and consumers.
It's one thing to allow for confidential contracting in our domestic
commerce where the Department of Justice or the investigating agency
can easily obtain evidence by subpoena. But this isn't the domestic
commerce. These contracts are being made and executed in

[[Page H4337]]

cities around the globe--Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, London, Rio de
Janiero, and Rotterdam. Many foreign governments have blocking statutes
to prevent discovery of evidence by U.S. investigators. It will be
virtually impossible to obtain information about the content of these
secret deals before the harm is done to U.S. ports, manufacturers, and
consumers. Was it good for the U.S. consumer and manufacturers when
OPEC got together to control the world price of oil?
At the appropriate time I will offer an amendment to require that
essential terms of these confidential contracts be made publicly
available and to transfer the residual functions of the FMC to the
Surface Transportation Board that currently regulates ocean shipping
between the continental United States and Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska,
and Guam. I believe that my amendment will not gut or kill this bill
but will restore the proper balance to this legislation and allow
market forces to regulate this industry instead of the Federal
Government.
Now you have already heard from the other side that this amendment
will gut the bill. There's nothing further from the truth. The fact is
my amendment would still allow for private contracts between shippers
and carriers. My amendment would not disturb the important provision in
the bill that conferences may not prevent individual carriers from
making separate contracts. All my amendment would do is require that
certain essential terms of these contracts be made public so that there
would be an equal playing field in terms of competition. In addition,
my amendment would also allow for the transfer of FMC's remaining
functions to the Secretary of Transportation with the minor
modification that the Secretary then delegate those responsibilities to
the Surface Transportation Board.
Hardly ``killer'' changes, I submit.
Lastly, you have also heard that this bill received bipartisan
support in the committee and that even though no hearings were held on
it there was opportunity for comment and reaction.
That's true. But unfortunately as is often the case, when a bill lays
around for 8 months after markup as this bill did, new issues and new
interested parties emerge.
While some may charge that particular groups came late in the game,
the real issue is not ``when'' but ``what.'' In this case, the issues
that have been raised are legitimate public policy issues which must be
addressed. My amendment addresses these issues, while at the same time
preserving the basic structure of deregulation established by the bill.
If my amendment is adopted, I will support final passage of the bill.
Without the amendment, I believe that the bill is highly
anticompetitive and I will urge a ``no'' vote on final passage.

{time} 1545

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], the distinguished chairman
of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the
chairman of the full committee, for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to comment to the gentleman from
Minnesota, I think he took umbrage with my earlier statement when I
used the words ``political intimidation.'' Well, I use those words
again, but I certainly meant nothing personal about that, I will say to
the gentleman from Minnesota.
Folks, is there anybody in this great hall who would dare think that
political intimidation is not an ingredient that we see every day up
here? All of us, nobody is immune to it. Sure, political intimidation
is kicked around. I did not mean anything personally by that at all.
But I do stand by my choice of words. I do think political intimidation
is involved here.
I have heard it said, Mr. Chairman, that oftentimes the lyrics of
music sometimes can bring things together. So I heard a song not long
ago, and I am going to try to connect it, Mr. Chairman, to what we are
about today.
The song was written by Tom T. Hall, the country balladeer, country
story teller, who was reared I think in Congressman Rogers' district in
Kentucky, and it is entitled ``The Ballad of $40''. The lyrics depict a
fellow who died and he was indebted to a friend in the amount of forty
bucks.
The creditor friend goes to the funeral, and the lyrics depict him
standing alongside the church there viewing the activity. And as he
sees the survivors of the deceased, his debtor, walk by, he says,
``That must be the widow in the car, and would you take a look at that;
My, what a pretty dress, you know some women do look good in black. He
ain't even in the ground, they tell me that his truck is up for sale.
They say she took it pretty hard, but you can't tell too much behind a
veil.''
Well, many people up here obviously have been wearing veils. Veils
conceal the eyes, and observers therefore are unable to determine the
sincerity of the voices behind the veils, because the veils conceal
eyes and faces. The observer is, therefore, at a disadvantage.
We were assured by our Democrat friends that they were supportive of
this legislation. And as the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman
Shuster, said earlier, we worked hard, Democrats and Republicans alike,
to strike a delicate, yet well-oiled balance.
Strategy sessions were conducted and staffers attended these sessions
representing Democrats and Republicans alike. A man said to me
yesterday who represents one of the groups supportive of this bill in
its present form, he said, ``I feel violated. I went to those strategy
sessions and shared information that was very personal to my group,
thinking people there were supportive of this legislation. Now I find
out they were spying.'' Those were his words, not mine. He felt
violated, he said.
All was well, Mr.. Chairman, until the Transportation Trades
Department of the AFL-CIO weighed in and told many of my friends on the
other side it was time for them to withdraw their support, withdraw
their support, despite past assurances that they were in fact
supportive.
Have we come to the point in this body where one's word, one's
promise, has no significance, has no meaning?
Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to elaborate about the 11th hour involvement
of the labor unions. Now, I am not being critical of rank and file,
card-carrying union members. My complaint is with union bosses. Union
members are rather flexible politically. They vote Republican,
Democrat, Liberal, Conservative. Union bosses, on the other hand, with
rare exceptions, vote straight Democrat, because I assume big
government, sometimes intrusive government, has appeal to these people.
Well, these bosses yell ``jump'', and many respond ``how high must I
jump?''

Recently some of my colleagues charged that the NRA had too much
clout with this Congress. Well, I wonder if these same people believe
the AFL-CIO has too much clout? Oh, I guess it is perfectly permissible
for the AFL-CIO to dictate the course of legislation, but highly
improper for the NRA and other groups to do likewise. The imposition of
a double standard, I ask, Mr. Chairman? Perhaps. Perhaps indeed.
A sea change has occurred on this bill. As recently as last week, I
say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I say to my friend from Minnesota,
the bill was on its way to inevitable passage because of bipartisan
support. Then came the AFL-CIO with their marching orders. Now those
who previously supported the bill have jumped ship.
A man's word was at one time his bond, but obviously not this day.
Too many people, Mr. Chairman, are wearing veils, enabling them to say
one thing and do another, and yet often times get away untouched,
unpunished, with this elusive approach.
This is a good piece of legislation in its present form, and America,
as I said in my remarks during the debate on the rule, will benefit.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, just mentioned how
much money will be realized by Americans if this bill is enacted. I
urge my friends to support it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

[[Page H4338]]

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding
me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Last
August, I raised questions about the wisdom of this piece of
legislation. Here is why I am concerned about this bill: $571 billion
of economic activity move through our Nation's ports; 15 million jobs
are generated in those ports. That is one in every seven jobs in the
country. Oceangoing vessels move over 95 percent of the U.S. overseas
trade by weight and 75 percent by value. This generates an estimated
$15 billion in U.S. customs duty revenue. These are truly staggering
numbers and the bill today jeopardizes all of them. Listen my
colleagues, if you have a small or medium sized port and you support
H.R. 2149, you can kiss your port goodbye.
I want to cite a September 1995 article in World Wide Shipping which
discusses ocean shipping deregulation. It states that a few giant
shipping consortia with global reach will dominate the world sealanes
before the end of the century, four short years away. One of the prime
supporters of today's bill outlined the scenario where maritime
container commerce would be 85 to 90 percent controlled by a few
conglomerated super-companies and that is the driving factor in today's
move to deregulate the U.S. shipping industry and carrier operating
alliances. The Republican revolution is putting deregulation into the
fast forward mode. At what cost? The byproduct will be the demise of
the niche carrier, the feeder lines and the north-south lines with no
other links in the shipping chain. One can almost hear the long knives
sharpening as these huge combinations prepare to carve up the commerce
of the United States.
You will be told that this is the wave of the future. This is the key
to international competition. We were told the same things before the
current downsizing craze and the merger and acquisition craze of the
1980's. Tell this lame economics to the workers who have been laid off
and the port workers who will lose their jobs. See if they believe you.
I want to quote a former Republican colleague of ours from Maryland
who has stood foresquare in opposition to this legislation, Helen
Bentley, recognized as an expert on maritime commerce. Ms. Bentley is
unequivocal: she says that this legislation will result in the
reduction of U.S. ports to as few as four. There are now over 100
public ports serving this country. From 100 ports to 4, now that's
downsizing any corporate pirate can be proud of.
This bill is simple. Big shippers and big carriers have gotten
together and put the screws to the nations' commerce. Ask your local
port authority. They oppose this legislation and have been threatened
and punished for it. Right now, port-critical language in the Water
Resources Development Act is being threatened with reprisal.
There has never been even a single hearing in the House on this bill.
One hearing was held last February 1995 on maritime issues. Last week,
there was even a hearing on the Federal Maritime Administration
authorization but this legislation was not even mentioned. If you read
the February 1995 testimony, only one, single witness favored the
position taken in this bill. There was strong opposition from every
other sector of the maritime community against wholesale deregulation.
Then something mysterious happened. Let me now quote page 10 of the
committee report:

It should be noted that during the Spring and Summer of
1995 numerous, in depth meetings and discussions were held
under the committee's auspices to forge a bill that could
enjoy wide support among all segments of the ocean shipping
industry to the greatest extent possible.

I note that the use of the phrase ``forge a bill'' could be construed
in the same sense one could forge a check because this bill is drawn on
an insufficient basis. A bill was introduced one day before the markup
in August, yet it took until November to file the report. There is
something very fishy about this bill and it smells of backroom, closed
door, special interest at the expense of everyone else. I say let the
sunshine in.

If this legislation enjoys widespread support in the ocean shipping
community, why are responsible parties expressing concern about this
bill being subjected to bullying, threats, and intimidation? Why were
all the discussions conducted behind closed doors? I know that
responsible parties with legitimate interests like the port authorities
and labor have been repeatedly threatened because they have voiced
concerns about what this legislation means.
Here are a few of the concerns that have been raised about this bill.
H.R. 2149 would allow large carriers and large shippers to
discriminate against ports in favor of super-hub ports without public
notice or public recourse.
H.R. 2149 would effectively impose higher rates on small and medium
sized shippers to subsidize secret deals made between large carriers
and large shippers. Many shippers would simply go out of business.
H.R. 2149 would result in massive job dislocation in port
communities. Wages and benefits would be pushed downward as ports
compete against ports and exporters compete against exporters.
H.R. 2149 is not deregulation. It is cartelling. H.R. 2149 will not
result in an ocean transportation industry governed by market
principles or competition. It will result in a system of cartels which
will operate with legal impunity. The United States has never before
recognized a cartel of this type.
H.R. 2149 threatens billions of dollars in taxpayer investment in
public ports and facilities.
I think that these are issues of consequence. I think that a radical
change in $571 billion in commerce merits at least a single hearing in
an open and free atmosphere.
Here is the bottomline: H.R. 2149 smells of the bad old days of
monopoly power. It reeks of secret contracts, immunity from antitrust
laws and no Government safeguards to act as a referee. If you like
secret deals, monopolies, unemployment, and recession, while billions
of dollars get funnelled directly into the pockets of the cartels, then
you should vote for H.R. 2149. If you care about the Nation, the
economy or government conducted in the sunshine, you will oppose this
bill.

{time} 1600

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to emphasize that the private contracts which pejoratively are called
secret contracts, these private contracts are not different from the
contracts that exist in Staggers, in rail, they are no different from
the contracts that exist in trucking, in aviation, and every other
mode. So for that reason we should simply bring ocean shipping into
what is going to become the twenty-first century.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Hyde], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2149, the Ocean Shipping
Reform Act, and in opposition to the Oberstar amendment.
This legislation would make significant reforms in the regulatory
regime contained in the Shipping Act of 1984. H.R. 2149 represents the
bipartisan compromise that would reform this outdated regime by
deregulating ocean shipping, infusing new price competition into the
industry, eliminating the need for the Federal Maritime Commission, and
maintaining oversight of ocean shipping conferences. As chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, I believe that H.R. 2149 moves this important
industry towards full market competition and I fully support it.
Under the Shipping Act of 1984, ocean carriers--most of whom are
foreign--are allowed to organize themselves into cartels, known as
conferences, and collectively fix their prices, set sailing schedules,
and make other business arrangements. In fact, the Shipping Act
provides an antitrust exemption for international ocean carriers and
their conferences, thereby sanctioning price fixing agreements. In
contrast, H.R. 2149 would lessen the power of the conferences to fix
prices by authorizing private contracts for ocean transportation, as
provided in all other areas of transportation.

[[Page H4339]]

During the consideration of the Shipping Act in the 98th Congress,
the majority of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, including
me, pushed hard for the concept of independent action. Independent
action means that an ocean carrier member of a cartel can act
independently of the cartel in setting its prices. We were able to
achieve that goal in a limited fashion. However, we did not feel that
the 1984 legislation went far enough in ending price fixing.
Fortunately, H.R. 2149 takes another step away from Government-
sanctioned price fixing by allowing shippers and carriers to enter into
private contracts away from the prying eyes of cartel enforcers. My
preference would be to end the antitrust immunity altogether for these
cartels. However, I am realistic enough to understand that H.R. 2149
represents a delicate compromise among many competing interests. While
it does not go as far as I would like, it is a vast improvement over
current law.
Unfortunately, Congressman Oberstar's amendment would upset this
delicate compromise by requiring prior publication of these private
ocean shipping contracts. Without the ability to negotiate reasonable
transportation rates in private, U.S. shippers--that is the tens of
thousands of American businesses who use the services of carriers--
would be at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors
who are not compelled to publicize their transportation costs. This
amendment would undermine the pro-competitive thrust of H.R. 2149, and
I strongly urge you to vote against it.
The biggest beneficiaries of the public contracts that the Oberstar
amendment seeks to preserve would be the foreign-dominated shipping
cartels who fix prices that they charge American businesses. Over 85
percent of U.S. goods are carried aboard foreign vessels, and this
amendment allows foreign ship owners to avoid competition and maintain
high profits at the expense of U.S. businesses and consumers.
Further, the Oberstar amendment would not help small shippers as its
proponents claim. According to a recent article in the Journal of
Commerce, getting the Government out of ocean shipping contracting may
allow smaller shippers to get a better bargain than large shippers.
Obviously, the thousands of small and medium shippers who support H.R.
2149 agree.
Finally, do not be fooled by the claim that the private nature of
these contracts is bad for the shippers. On the contrary, privacy
allows competition in rates. Publicizing prices only allows the
foreign-dominated cartels to enforce the prices they have fixed.
Without this mode of enforcement, competition will ultimately undermine
the cartels.
The proponents of the amendment argue that the antitrust immunity
provided by the Shipping Act somehow counsels against private
contracts. However, the antitrust immunity applies only to agreements
among the carriers themselves and with terminal operators. It does not
apply to the private contracts between carriers and shippers that the
amendment seeks to overturn. Thus, the continuation of antitrust
immunity for the cartels is not an argument against private contracts
between carriers and shippers.
Cast your vote for the free market, lower prices and actual
competition in ocean shipping. Vote for H.R. 2149 and against the
Oberstar amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I think those listening to the debate are perhaps
becoming a bit confused. We have heard from the esteemed chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary how these secret agreements and the
antitrust exemptions will lead to a freer market, more competition,
benefit all shippers, particularly possibly maybe smaller shippers and
others, and those who have been listening to the debate have heard the
opposite from this side of the aisle.
I guess that is a good argument to basically withdraw this bill and
go back to the committee of jurisdiction on which I sit and hold a
hearing. It would be nice to hear from the broad interests that are
going to be impacted by this bill in some detail how they believe this
will affect American ports, American shippers, American workers, and
the American maritime industry, such as it is. But no hearings were
held and none will be held before this bill is voted on. That is
absurd, for something that has such a tremendous economic impact, or
potential impact on this country.
I respectfully disagree with the prior speakers on that side of the
aisle. I believe that antitrust immunity linked to secret, nonpublished
tariffs and rates will lead to an anticompetitive environment, an
environment that is particularly to the disadvantage of small- and
medium-sized shippers and the businesses which they serve. I believe
that this will also bring about problems for medium-sized and smaller
ports in America.
I do not believe a country that concentrates all of its shipping in
two or three large ports is a healthy nation, particularly a maritime
nation such as the United States of America. So for those Members who
represent States which contain medium-sized or smaller-sized ports, if
they do not represent a megaport, this bill in all probability will
deprive their port, their State, of vital interests and of carriage
through those areas. That means job loss, competitive loss, competitive
disadvantage for their States.
Beyond that, I disagree also, Mr. Chairman, on the fact that this
will somehow disadvantage the foreign cartels; to have antitrust
immunity, and secret agreements, and no transparency, and no
publication of rates and tariffs is somehow going to disadvantage
foreign cartels, who are right now trying to drive American shippers
out of business and trying to channel business through a few select
ports. No, I do not believe this bill is going to help that situation.
In fact, I believe it is going to make it worse.
There is only one remedy. We can get the savings proposed here by
eliminating the Maritime Commission. We can get the savings and the
efficiency that underlie other parts of this bill, and we can maintain
competition, maintain a viable environment for small shippers, medium
shippers, small ports, medium ports if the bill is amended with the
Oberstar amendment, which the chairman of the full committee objects to
vehemently.
Again, perhaps we could sort those differences out if we went back
and held a hearing. But absent a hearing, I think we should act in a
way that is prudent to protect America's interests and the diversity of
interests in this country by adopting the Oberstar amendment. And
absent the Oberstar amendment, I and many others will not support this
legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond to my good friend from Oregon that, first, hearings were
held on February 2 on ocean shipping deregulation. Second, in the last
Congress there were at least three different major bills on which
precisely the procedure which was followed in the last Congress was
followed in this Congress, and that is hearings on airline
improvements, hearings on trucking deregulation, and hearings on
amending the FAA, all of which, under the control of our Democratic
friends, hearings were held on the issue but no hearings were held on
the actual text of the legislation. So we are simply following the same
procedure that our Democratic friends followed in the last Congress.
And, finally, I would also say that my good friend, the gentleman
from Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, in his statement on August 1 in the
committee, said that, and I quote him directly, the basis of this
legislation is bipartisan; a cooperative manner in which the bill was
developed, and the willingness of Chairman Coble to let the bill hang
out there for a time and let people digest it, and comment on it, and
be comfortable with it and with changes that need to be made.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Baker].
Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I got into this process early
serving on the subcommittee, and at the point we entered the debate
there was a mechanism where we fixed prices and the cartels and other
parts of the world fixed prices. How can we, if we want to increase our
exports, use shipping when the prices are fixed artificially high?

[[Page H4340]]

How do we expect to change our balance of payments if we are going to
allow the shipping to be artificially high?

{time} 1615

So the gentleman from North Carolina, Chairman Coble, and I and other
members of the committee said the end of the Maritime Commission, the
end of price fixing, we are going to join the late 1800's and we are
going to have competition.
No one thought we would do it. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Coble] assured them, the chairman of the committee, that we were crazy
enough to eliminate them, just as has been suggested by Democratic
Congresses before that. This mechanism was old. Seven years ago we
asked that they study this mechanism, and this Congress demanded that
they study this mechanism. And because the carriers had a lock grip on
the Maritime Commission, they came back with no recommendation,
surprise, surprise.
Another 4 years went on after that and nothing happened. But then we
got a new Congress and we began addressing problems. We said the old
days are over, this mechanism is going. They are going under the
Department of Transportation and this industry is going to be
deregulated, just as rail and trucking was before it.
The rail units have, quote, secret contracts. Is it not funny when we
have a business agreement with somebody and we do not post it on the
wall, it becomes evil at the last moment? These are now secret
contracts. The shipping people and the rail industry have secret
contracts. Truckers have secret contractors. And while we post the
airline rates for you and me, we know what we pay when we walk in, the
airlines are free to go to a corporation and say, ``Use us a bunch of
times and we will give you a discount.'' Those are secret contracts.
So now we are being besieged to, well, just take that out, do not
allow competition, post the rates which then become the rates.
Everybody will have the same rate once again, back to the old rule. So
what happened? We allowed shippers and carriers, those who have ships,
those who make the product, whether they be small manufacturers or
farmers, large goods, small goods, they got into a room and they
decided they could work it out by themselves, once they realized we
were crazy enough to get rid of their cartel mechanism, and they worked
it out.
They came out and just showed what their final product was and
everybody signed off on it, until the unions decided this was 1996 and
they wanted to play politics. They wanted to muscle around on the floor
of the legislative body and they said, ``Oh, we no longer think this is
a good deal.'' We cannot lose American jobs in shipping because most of
the people in shipping, whether they are American flags or foreign
flags, are foreigners.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to alert our Members to this
bill that we will be voting on here this afternoon, and I would like to
pay a very high compliment to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Coble, the chairman of the subcommittee, and obviously the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster. It is great to stand up here and
be with Chairman Shuster, not only because we won the last time but,
second, he generally wins, so it is good to be working with him this
time.
But I want to say to our Members that this is another outstanding
effort by this Congress to try to move things literally with an aim
toward the 21st century. Now, I think we have got to give Jimmy Carter
a little bit of credit, President Carter a little bit of credit for
deregulating a number of industries: the trucking industry, the bus
industry. We are trying to do some deregulation of railroads and of
airlines, as you know.
All we are trying to do here is to say that the time has come in
America where we ought to deregulate some of the activity involved in
shipping. And at the same time, very similar to what we did in the
Interstate Commerce Commission, we are saying we do not need this old
bureaucracy anymore.

This bill will call for the dismantling of the Federal Maritime
Commission. This is a fantastic vote for this Congress so we will be
able to achieve several things: One is, we will deregulate because we
believe that regulations cost money and strangle business. Second, we
will have a lowering of prices. It will be pro-consumer. Third, it is
pro-taxpayer because we are again trying to pull another one of these
tired old dinosaur-like bureaucracies out by the roots and to suggest
that we move into the 21st century.
So the members of our party in particular should be very enthusiastic
to vote for less government, less regulation, and giving the taxpayers
a break on some of the money that they are sending up here to keep
piling up World War II bureaucracy. We are going to cut through that.
To my Democratic friends who are market-oriented, this makes all the
sense in the world. If you believe in deregulating trucking, if you
believe that people have been served well in this country, consumers,
by a better product with more competition, you need to vote for this
bill. If you want to get rid of some of the World War II relics, you
have got to come to the floor and vote for this bill.
I one more time want to compliment Chairman Shuster and Chairman
Coble for their outstanding work, and would ask for very strong support
of this legislation.
Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think
the gentleman in the budget area said $17 million savings on the
commission, lower rates to consumers and a better trade balance. I ask
for an ``aye'' vote, and a ``no'' vote on the Oberstar amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I am sorry my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, left the floor so
precipitously. All he said, we are in agreement with. There is nothing
that my amendment does that will affect in any way anything that he
said. We are all in agreement about this deregulation, about all the
good things he talked about. We just want to correct one defective
aspect of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Lipinski].
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
yielding me the time, and I want to say that I feel I am compelled to
speak on this particular bill because I had the fortune of being the
last chairman of the late, great Merchant Marine subcommittee.
H.R. 2149, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, provides badly needed
reform to the ocean shipping industry. The ocean shipping industry is
one of the only transportation industries still heavily regulated by
the U.S. Federal Government. By substantially deregulating the ocean
shipping industry, this bill has the potential to restore the
competitiveness of the American shipper.
The United States is the only country in the world that maintains a
Government agency to regulate ocean shipping. For this reason, the
Ocean Shipping Reform Act sunsets the Federal Maritime Commission--a
Federal agency which has clearly outlived its usefulness.
The Ocean Shipping Reform Act also eliminates the detrimental tariff-
filing and enforcement requirements. It preserves common carriage for
all sizes of U.S. shippers who choose that method of ocean
transportation. Most importantly, the bill also strengthens the laws
that prohibit unfair trade practices on behalf of foreign carriers.
Under the bill, the United States will retain the authority to police
foreign carriers and governments who set anticompetitively low rates
and other foreign activities detrimental to U.S. carriers.
Despite these much needed reforms, I will not be able to vote for
H.R. 2149 without an amendment. The Ocean Shipping Reform Act allows
conferences of carriers to enter into secret contracts and still enjoy
full immunity from U.S. antitrust laws. These secret contracts will
only accelerate the trend in the maritime industry toward
consolidation. With carriers operating free from antitrust laws, there
would be no safeguards to prevent predatory activity. Small consumers,
manufacturers, and ports will have no recourse

[[Page H4341]]

from secret deals that discriminate against them.
Allowing secret, discriminatory contracts is a fundamental flaw of
H.R. 2149, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. I urge my colleagues to adopt
the amendment which would preserve the requirement that carriers file
their rates. Only with the amendment will the Ocean Shipping Reform Act
produce a stronger maritime industry capable of meeting the Nation's
future ocean transportation needs.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Ocean Shipping Reform Act only
and only if the Oberstar amendment passes this afternoon.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps my good friend from Illinois misspoke, because
when he said that the so-called secret contracts will have antitrust
immunity, that simply is not the case. The antitrust immunity applies
only to the published rates.
The antitrust immunity does not apply to the private contracts, the
so-called secret contracts which the gentleman refers to. I wish to
emphasize that very, very clearly. The antitrust immunity does not
apply to the private contracts entered into, the same private contracts
that already exist for every other mode of transportationin America.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my opposition to H.R. 2149 and my
strong support for the Oberstar amendment.
H.R. 2149, as it now stands, would benefit a small group of large
shippers and a handful of the largest ports at the expense of everyone
else. The committee bill would be a serious threat for consumers, for
small shippers, and for all but the largest ports.
In Philadelphia, a minimum of 11,000 people owe their jobs to port
activity. H.R. 2149 could put those 11,000 jobs at serious risk because
shipping activity could be funneled through a few large ports.
Just a few years ago, we saw the power of the ocean carrier cartels
when the Northern Europe-United States Conference dropped its
designation of Philadelphia as a port of call. Since then, the carrier
conferences have become larger and even more powerful.
H.R. 2149 would provide a powerful new launching pad for
concentration of the carrier industry, of the shipping industry, and of
the ports of this Nation. One of the major backers of this bill has
said that the 100 public ports that exist today in this country will be
reduced to four. That concentration will come at the cost of tens of
thousands of jobs in every part of this country.
It is the threat of the industry and port concentration that would be
promoted by this bill that has prompted the strong opposition that has
surfaced during the past 8 months.
We have heard from the ports, from labor, and from small shippers
about the damage this bill could cause.
To make this bill acceptable, we must eliminate the cloak of secrecy
that H.R. 2149 would cast over freight carrier contracts. The Oberstar
amendment would lift that veil of secrecy to protect consumers, small
shippers, and smaller ports from potentially serious damage that could
take place if the confidentiailiy provision is allowed to stand.
If the Oberstar amendment is not adopted, the end result of this bill
will be fewer shippers, fewer carriers, and fewer ports. This Congress
should not be creating a special veil of secrecy for ocean shipping
that will put thousands of people out of work.
This bill is a step backward from the open and public disclosure of
contract terms that has existed since the Ocean Shipping Act of 1984.
H.R. 2149 continues the special antitrust exemption for ocean carrier
conferences but it also allows the deals made by these conferences to
be secret.
The new secrecy authority will make these conferences into cartels
that will become more and more powerful. Eventually, there will be no
competition. That means fewer jobs.
It is also crucial that an independent regulatory board, such as the
Surface Transportation Board in the Department of Transportation, take
over the remaining oversight functions of the Federal Maritime
Commission. The Oberstar amendment would eliminate the FMC and transfer
its functions to the Surface Transportation Board.
Without the Oberstar amendment, H.R. 2149 is anticonsumer,
antiworker, and will benefit only a handful of major ports. Without the
Oberstar amendment, H.R. 2149 is a job killer that should not be
approved.
I am also concerned about other issues that have been raised by the
American Association of Port Authorities, another group which opposes
the bill. AAPA has objected to the provisions on tariff filing and on
steamship alliances. I hope those issues can be resolved so the ports
can support the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Oberstar amendment and defeat of
the bill unless the Oberstar amendment is adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises that the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Shuster] has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining and the right to close, and
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, in the course of this debate, much has been made of who
said what and when. At the very outset of this whole process, I made it
very clear to my good friend, the chairman of our committee, that as we
moved the bill through subcommittee and full committee, I supported the
bill.
I felt, however, there should have been hearings on the introduced
bill before we went to markup, but there was a willingness to work
together to try to work out differences to come to an agreement. When
we came to markup, I said very clearly, ``I support the legislation
being considered, as do my fellow Democrats on the committee.'' I
thought that we had gone through a process whereby all considerations
had been given an opportunity to be brought to bear on the legislation.

{time} 1630

The bill that the committee was about to consider was very similar, I
said, to legislation I introduced earlier in the year, but that bill
that I introduced following the concept hearings the committee held
never allowed for secret contracts. That was not something, it was not
a provision, that I supported. We had come to an agreement, however,
that I thought was about as far as we could go at that point.
Mr. Chairman, time passed 8 months went on, and agreements should
never stand in the way of good public policy. If people have objection
to legislation, people feel their interests are being hurt, if ports
feel that they are going to be disadvantaged, if labor feels it is
going to be disadvantaged, we have a right to hear their concerns, and
we have a responsibility to react to those concerns. That is what I am
doing in proposing my amendment.
This is not some act of disloyalty, as it seems to be portrayed in
the course of this general debate. This is, however, a high act of
public responsibility and public policy. Openly discussed, I did not
conceal from my friends on the Republican side that there were concerns
raised by valid interests that need to be heard. I was very open about
it, told my colleagues directly what needed to be done and gave them an
opportunity to look at this legislation, at this amendment, rise
objections if they have them. We understood that they could not
probably come to an agreement on it and that this is the place to take
that language to the floor and have a vote on it, and we will have a
vote.
Mr. Chairman, but it is done in the full spirit of openness and of
respecting interests that people have and concerns in this open public
policy process. There is no hidden agenda on my part or on the part of
any of us on this side. We have differences; let us have them out. But
let us not make them personal. I never have and I do not like that way
of proceeding. We have differences on public policy issues; let us
debate them out on their merits, and that is what we are going to do in
a few minutes.

[[Page H4342]]

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to strongly concur with the last statement my
good friend made because, the minute he realized that there was going
to be an effort on the part of labor to try to change this legislation,
in the spirit of openness and fairness he came to me immediately, and
he told me that there was this problem developing. So I salute him, and
I concur with what he said in the spirit of openness with which we have
always worked.
I would like to review the facts, however, as how this has developed
and the whole question of this last-minute abrogation, I must call it,
of an agreement from my perspective. Last June 28 we put out a
bipartisan press release, both sides of the aisle, in our committee,
and we listed the seven key elements of the compromise and the private
contracts. The confidential contracts were one of the seven elements.
Mr. Chairman, from June 28 to August 1 and 2, the markups, we heard
nothing about opposition. On August 1 and 2 we marked up the bill; we
heard no opposition to this issue. On April 2, this year, less than a
month ago, my good friend, the ranking member of the committee, was
still supporting the private contracts in speeches to the ports.

Indeed, and I again emphasize what my good friend said because I
think it is so relevant, he said our committee has reported the Ocean
Shipping Act to the House and proposed that we deregulate the ocean
transportation industry in ways that are similar to what we have
already done in trucking and rail and airline industries. We would
eliminate tariff filings and allow for confidential service contracts.
My good friend went on to say, ``I know that some ports may have
concerns about the possible impact of this bill, but I would hope that
you would look at this as an opportunity to increase your business and
not as a threat to your existence.'' Then he further went on to say,
``Shippers and consumers will pay less for their products, the ports
will be handling more cargoes, and the ocean carriers will have a more
competitive operating environment.''.
So after all these months, 10 months after we had a compromise, a
bipartisan agreement, no problem. Finally, a few days ago something
changed, and I understand that, and we all know what changed, and I
respect that. But really those are the facts.
Mr. Chairman, it should be emphasized once again that the compromise
that was agreed to was that the carriers would swallow hard and accept
private contracts for the shippers. The shippers would swallow hard and
accept keeping antitrust immunity which the carriers wanted, and indeed
I emphasize again, lest there be no misunderstanding. With regard to
the private contracts the antitrust immunity does not apply. The
antitrust immunity applies only to the published tariff rates.
Further, I would ask rhetorically to my good friends on the other
side of the aisle, do they want to eliminate the private contracts that
we gave to rail in the Staggers act? I have heard nobody proposing to
do that. Do they want to eliminate the private contracts which exist in
the trucking industry? I have heard nobody propose that. Do they want
to eliminate the private contracts that exist in the aviation industry?
I have heard nobody propose that.
Yes, every other mode of transportation in America has the ability to
enter into private contracts between the shipper and the carrier, and
we are simply doing here today what every other mode of transportation
already has in America.
Now my friends can try to characterize it as secret agreements. These
are private agreements which every other mode has, and for that reason
I think that we should treat the ocean carriers in exactly the same
way. Indeed, let us not destroy this compromise, let us not gut this
bill. Let us pass the bill as it was overwhelmingly passed on a
bipartisan basis out of our committee and, until last Thursday evening,
had the strong bipartisan support of virtually every member of the
committee on both sides of the aisle.
For all those reasons I would urge my colleagues to reject the
Oberstar amendment when it comes and to support the bill so we can get
on with real regulatory reform in the transportation industry.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to applaud the
chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee,
Howard Coble, for all the hard work he and his staff did on this bill.
I was the ranking member of the subcommittee when the bill was
approved. We worked very closely with shippers, carriers, and maritime
labor. The bill approved by the committee last August had the strong
support of ocean shippers and carriers. At the time, maritime labor
indicated that they were not opposed to the bill, although they did not
expressly support it.
It has been 9 months since the bill was approved by the committee.
Members of Congress and our friends in maritime labor have had time to
digest the bill and fully understand every section. After this normal
process of reflection, one legitimate concern has arisen over the issue
of secret contracts.
H.R. 2149 amends existing law by repealing the requirement that the
essential terms of contracts between ocean carriers and shippers be
disclosed to the public. On the surface, this seems to make common
sense--especially when one looks at the manner in which the rail and
highway shipping industries operate. But unlike the rail and highway
industries, in ocean shipping, most of the carriers are part of
conferences that are immune from U.S. antitrust laws.
The combination of antitrust immunity and secret contracts will
greatly compromise the delicate competitive balance between ocean
carriers and shippers. The only way to fully protect small carriers and
shippers, as well as small- to mid-size ports, is to preserve the
requirements in existing law for disclosure of the essential terms of
ocean shipping contracts.
All the Oberstar amendment does is retain the disclosure requirement.
I support the Oberstar amendment. Far from gutting the bill, the
Oberstar amendment retains all of the key provisions in H.R. 2149.
These include:
Elimination of the Federal Maritime Commission; elimination of tariff
filing; elimination of restrictions on the contents of contracts
between shippers and carriers; repeal of current provision of law that
allowed carrier conferences to bar their members from making
individual, lower cost, ocean transportation contracts with shippers;
reduction of the amount of notice a carrier must give a conference
before it offers lower contract rate from 10 days to 3 days.
Most significantly, the Oberstar amendment retains key language I had
included in the bill to strengthen the ability of the United States to
combat unfair, predatory, and anticompetitive trade practices by
foreign governments and carriers.
While I support the elimination of the FMC, I want to applaud the FMC
for the excellent job it did over the years to protect U.S. ocean
shippers and carriers from unfair and illegal foreign trade practices.
The FMC rarely took action against a foreign government or a foreign
carrier. It didn't have to. Merely the threat of FMC sanctions was
enough to keep foreign governments and foreign carriers in line.
The Traficant language included in the bill and the Oberstar
amendment will ensure that the United States retains the ability to
take decisive action against foreign governments and carriers that
engage in unfair trade practices. In fact, the Traficant language
actually strengthens the hand of the United States.
The bottom line: The Oberstar amendment will not gut the bill. I urge
Members to support the Oberstar amendment, and I applaud the
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Oberstar, for bringing the amendment
forward.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2149, the
Ocean Shipping Act of 1995, in its present form and in favor of the
Oberstar amendment that would remove some of the onerous provisions in
this legislation that are harmful to domestic offshore areas such as
Guam.
Open and fair competition in the shipping industry is good. But, we
do not have open and fair competition in the domestic offshore trades.
Instead, because of the Jones Act and cargo preference laws, we have
captive markets like Guam that are gouged by carriers with high
shipping rates due to lack of competition. Because there is no
effective competition in the offshore trades, we need effective
regulation, or completely open markets--it seems that we are moving in
the direction of having the worst of both worlds. To allow the carriers
to have complete freedom to set secret rates without public disclosure
would only exacerbate the exploitation of the domestic offshore markets
and the raiding of consumers' wallets on Guam. I opposed certain
provisions of the ICC Termination Act for this reason.
This same basic infirmity is now being proposed for the foreign
commerce of the United

[[Page H4343]]

States in H.R. 2149. Most troubling are provisions in H.R. 2149 that
would allow conferences to negotiate secret rate deals with shippers.
The effect on the shipping industry is potentially devastating. By
allowing secret contracts, major shippers and major ports may be able
to steer business away from smaller shippers and ports. Any oversight
by the Department of Transportation, once the Federal Maritime
Commission is eliminated, would be meaningless if critical information
about the carriers' trade practices are withheld.
I am concerned about the effect of our maritime policies on captive
markets such as Guam and have voiced those concerns during the debate
on the ICC Termination Act. I have also urged the Department of
Transportation to consider the domestic offshore trades, the impact on
individual areas such as Guam, and the potential for abuse of carriers'
rate-making authority in exercising its oversight responsibilities.
These considerations apply with equal force to the foreign commerce of
our Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support the Oberstar amendment to retain some
accountability by DOT over the carriers.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill H.R. 2149,
so as to eliminate the regulation by the Federal Maritime Commission
[FMC] of manufactured and processed goods including many agricultural
food and fiber products.
As I understand it, existing maritime law permits ocean carriers to
organize into consortiums, known in the trade as shipping conferences
that may collectively fix their rates, set sailing schedules, and make
other business arrangements. I am informed that the United States is
the only country that maintains a government agency--FMC--to regulate
ocean shipping.
The apparent primary purpose of FMC is to collect and enforce
thousands of transportation rates and prices--tariffs--and business
contracts filed by ocean carriers and make them publicly available.
The Transportation Committee states that a report prepared by the
Department of Agriculture in 1993 found that a ``cartel premium''
attributable to conference market power amounts to some 18 percent of
the cost of ocean transportation of manufactured or processed
agricultural exports.
The Committee on Agriculture for a number of years has enacted
legislation urging the Secretary of Agriculture to expand on value-
added--high value--processed products so that not only will the United
States enhance its dollar value and volume of agricultural exports but
also enhance rural development by giving jobs to our domestic work
force by processing and adding value to our raw commodities and compete
in foreign markets. However, to be competitive we need to diminish or
eliminate that 18-percent cost of exporting U.S. value-added products
and keep that advantage here in the United States to help our domestic
farmers, agricultural industries and laborers.
The following groups, among about 40 or more, that support this bill
include American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest and Paper
Association, American Frozen Food Institute, American Meat Institute,
Calcat Ltd., Con Agra, Inc., Florida Citrus Packers, National Broiler
Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Sun Diamond Growers of
California, and Weyerhaeuser Co.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support
of the Oberstar amendment to H.R. 2149, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act.
This amendment, simply put, requires the public disclosure of the
essential terms of contracts that could be secret and/or
discriminatory. The authority to make secret contracts is particularly
inappropriate when we bear in mind that under H.R. 2149 carriers,
consortia of carriers, and their conferences will operate under
antitrust immunity.
Mr. Chairman, the combination of antitrust immunity and secret
agreements undercuts the Shipping Act of 1984 which achieved a delicate
balance between the competing interests of the ocean carrier and the
shipper. Under the 1984 act, carriers were allowed to continue having
conferences, but the essential terms of the contracts they entered into
with shippers had to be publicly disclosed to ensure that they were not
discriminating against shippers, ports, manufacturers, and freight
forwarders. Without this amendment, Mr. Chairman, this balance will be
destroyed. Carriers will be allowed to enter into confidential ocean
transportation contracts and no one, not even the Federal Government,
will know when these carriers or cartels choose to harm our ports or
industries.
Mr. Chairman, with the Oberstar amendment, significant but fair
deregulation will still occur. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment that will ensure that true marketplace forces will be able to
provide safeguards to protect our consumers, manufacturers, and ports
from secret deals that discriminate against them.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, last year, I was a Chair of the
Budget Committee working group looking at this part of the budget. We
recommended the elimination of the Federal Maritime Commission. I'm
glad to support this bill to do that today.
The Federal Maritime Commission, established in 1961, is charged with
maintaining a cartel formed by the steamship lines to increase ocean
transportation rates above market levels. The FMC also enforces an
extraordinarily burdensome tariff filing scheme and restricts the
negotiation of contracts for the transportation of goods. This burdens
out exporters and contributes to our negative balance of trade. Dr.
Alan Furgeson an economist under contract with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, calculated that FMC regulations and restrictions increase
transportation costs by an average of 18 percent above the market
level. He also estimated that U.S. exporters lose hundreds of millions
of dollars of sales due to these additional transport costs. The bottom
line is that the FMC is costing Americans jobs by rendering U.S.
products less cost-competitive. This proposal would deregulate Federal
maritime policy, terminate the Commission, and transfer critical
functions to the Department of Transportation.
It deserves our support.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired. Before
consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to consider
the amendment printed in part 1 of House Report 104-544, if offered by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] or his designee. That
amendment shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question.
If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be
considered as an original bill by title, and the first section and each
title shall be considered read.
If offered, the amendment printed in part 2 of the report shall be
considered read, may amend portions of the bill not yet read for
amendment, shall not be subject to amendment, except for pro forma
amendments, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure I understand that the
gentleman from Minnesota will not be limited in time on his amendment,
which it is our intent that he not be limited; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. In response to the question, the gentleman is correct.

amendment offered by mr. shuster

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Shuster: Page 3, line 3, strike
``rates;'' and insert ``rates, charges, classifications,
rules, and practices;''.
Page 3, line 19, strike ``or'' and insert ``and''.
Page 10, line 17, strike the closing quotation marks and
the final period.
Page 10, after line 17, insert the following:
``(4) The requirements and prohibitions concerning
contracting by conferences contained in sections 5(b) (9) and
(10) of this Act shall also apply to any agreement among one
or more ocean common carriers that is filed under section
5(a) of this Act.''.
Page 10, line 23, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
Page 14, after line 19, insert the following:
(A) by striking subsection (c)(1) and inserting the
following:
``(1) boycott, take any concerted action resulting in an
unreasonable refusal to deal, or implement a policy or
practice that results in an unreasonable refusal to deal;'';
Page 14, line 20, strike ``(A)'' and insert ``(B)''.
Page 14, line 23, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.
Page 14, line 25, insert ``and'' at the end.
Page 15, line 3, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.

[[Page H4344]]

Page 15, strike lines 4 through 9.
Page 19, strike lines 4 through 25 and insert the
following:
(1) by striking subsections (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
render forwarding services.'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively;
(3) by 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 shall be available to pay any judgment for
damages against an ocean freight forwarder arising from its
transportation-related activities under this Act or order for
reparation issued pursuant to section 11 or 14 of this Act.
``(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) in subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (2) of
this section, by striking ``a bond in accordance with
subsection (a)(2)'' and inserting ``a bond, proof of
insurance, or other surety in accordance with subsection
(b)(1)''; and
(5) in subsection (e), as redesignated by paragraph (2) of
this section--
(A) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraph
(4) as paragraph (3); and
(B) by adding at the end 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 3 business days, to take
independent action on any level of compensation paid to an
ocean freight forwarder; or
``(B) agree to limit the payment of compensation to an
ocean freight forwarder, as defined in section 3(18)(A) of
this Act, to less than 1.25 percent of the aggregate of all
rates and charges which are applicable under a common
schedule of transportation rates provided under section 8(a)
of this Act, and which are assessed against the cargo on
which the forwarding services are provided.''.
Page 24, line 15, strike ``United States carriers'' and
insert ``one or more ocean common carriers''.
Page 24, strike lines 19 through 24 and insert the
following:
``(h)(1) The Secretary shall issue regulations by June 1,
1997, that prescribe procedures and requirements governing
the submission of price and other information necessary to
enable the Secretary to determine under subsection (g)
whether prices charged by carriers are unfair, predatory, or
anticompetitive.
``(2)(A) If information provided to the Secretary under
this subsection does not result in a finding by the Secretary
of a violation of this section or enforcement action by the
Secretary, the information may not be made public and shall
be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5,
United States Code, except for purposes of an administrative
or judicial action or proceeding.
``(B) This paragraph does not prohibit disclosure to either
House of the Congress or to a duly authorized committee or
subcommittee of the Congress.''.
Page 25, after line 10, insert the following:

``SEC. 203. REPORT BY THE SECRETARY.

``The Secretary shall report to the Congress by January 1,
1998, and annually thereafter, on--
``(1) actions taken by the Secretary under the Foreign
Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 App. U.S.C. 1710a) and
section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1708);
and
``(2) the effect on United States maritime employment of
laws, rules, regulations, policies, or practice of foreign
governments, and any practices of foreign carriers or other
persons providing maritime or maritime-related services in a
foreign country, that adversely affect the operations of
United States carriers in United States oceanborne trade.''
Page 25, strike line 14 and all that follows through line 4
on page 26 and insert the following:

SEC. 301. AGENCY TERMINATION.

(a) In General.--On September 30, 1997, the Federal
Maritime Commission shall terminate and all remaining
functions, powers, and duties of the Federal Maritime
Commission shall be transferred to the Secretary of
Transportation.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997.--
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Federal
Maritime Commission, $19,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Shuster] and a Member opposed each will be recognized for 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment, contains amendments to
H.R. 2149 as reported, clarifies the definition of a conference,
extends the prohibition against conference interfering with
contracting, terminates Federal Maritime Commission at the end of
fiscal 1997. I believe this amendment is not controversial, and I would
urge its adoption.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we are not opposed to the amendment.
Therefore, we claim no time.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:

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
1995''.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1? If not the Clerk
will designate title I.
The text of title I is as follows:
TITLE I--OCEAN SHIPPING REFORM

SEC. 101. PURPOSES.

Section 2 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1701)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding a new paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) to permit carriers and shippers to develop
transportation arrangements to meet their specific needs.''.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

Section 3 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1702)
is amended--
(1) effective on January 1, 1997--
(A) by striking paragraph (9); and
(B) by redesignating the remaining paragraphs accordingly;
(2) effective on June 1, 1997--
(A) by striking paragraph (4);
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking ``a common tariff;'' and
inserting ``a common schedule of transportation rates;'';
(C) by striking paragraph (10) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1) of this section);
(D) by striking paragraph (13) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1) of this section);
(E) by striking paragraph (16) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1) of this section);
(F) by amending paragraph (18) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1) of this section) to read as follows:
``(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; or
``(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.'';
(G) by striking paragraph (20) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1) of this section);
(H) in paragraph (22) (as redesignated by paragraph (1) of
this section)--
(i) by striking ``or'' the second time it appears and
inserting a comma; and
(ii) by striking the period and inserting ``, a shippers'
association, or an ocean freight forwarder that accepts
responsibility for payment of the ocean freight.'';
(I) by amending paragraph (23) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1) of this section) to read as follows:
``(23) `shippers' association' means a group of shippers
that consolidates or distributes freight, on a nonprofit
basis for the members of the group in order to secure
carload, truckload, or other volume rates or ocean
transportation contracts.''; and
(J) by inserting after paragraph (18) the following new
paragraph:
``(19) `ocean transportation contract' means a contract in
writing separate from the bill of lading or receipt between 1
or more common carriers or a conference and 1 or more
shippers to provide specified services under specified rates
and conditions.''.

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

Section 4(a) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C.
1703(a)) is amended, effective on June 1, 1997--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``non-vessel-operating
common carriers'' and inserting ``ocean freight forwarders'';
and
(2) by amending paragraph (7) to read as follows:
``(7) discuss any matter related to ocean transportation
contracts, and enter ocean transportation contracts and
agreements related to those contracts.''.

[[Page H4345]]

SEC. 104. AGREEMENTS.

Section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1704)
is amended--
(1) effective on January 1, 1997--
(A) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``at the request of
any member, require an independent neutral body to police
fully'' and inserting ``state the provisions, if any, for the
policing of'';
(B) in subsection (b)(7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in subsection (b)(8), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following
new paragraph:
``(9) provide that a member of the conference may enter
individual and independent negotiations and may conclude
individual and independent service contracts under section 8
of this Act.'';
(2) effective on June 1, 1997--
(A) by amending subsection (b)(8) to read as follows:
``(8) provide that any member of the conference may take
independent action on any rate or service item agreed upon by
the conference for transportation provided under section 8(a)
of this Act upon not more than 3 business days' notice to the
conference, and that the conference will provide the new rate
or service item for use by that member, effective no later
than 3 business days after receipt of that 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 provision
for that rate or service item;''; and
(B) by adding the following new paragraph to read as
follows:
``(10) prohibit the conference from--
``(A) prohibiting or restricting the members of the
conference from engaging in individual negotiations for ocean
transportation contracts under section 8(b) with 1 or more
shippers; and
``(B) issuing mandatory rules or requirements affecting
ocean transportation contracts that may be entered by 1 or
more members of the conference, except that a conference may
require that a member of the conference disclose the
existence of an existing individual ocean transportation
contract or negotiations on an ocean transportation contract,
when the conference enters negotiations on an ocean
transportation contract with the same shipper.'';
(C) in subsection (e), by striking ``carrier that are
required to be set forth in a tariff,'' and inserting
``carrier,''; and
(D) in subsection (b)(9), by striking ``service'' and
inserting ``ocean transportation''.

SEC. 105. EXEMPTION FROM ANTITRUST LAWS.

Section 7 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1706)
is amended--
(1) by amending subsection (a)(6) to read as follows:
``(6) subject to section 20(e)(2) of this Act, any
agreement, modification, or cancellation, in effect before
the effective date of this Act and any tariff, rate, fare,
charge, classification, rule, or regulation explanatory
thereof implementing that agreement, modification, or
cancellation.''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``agency'' and
inserting ``agency, department,''.

SEC. 106. COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIAGE.

(a) In General.--Effective on June 1, 1997--
(1) section 8a of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C.
1707a) is repealed; and
(2) section 8 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C.
1707) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 8. COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIAGE.

``(a) Common Carriage.--
``(1) A common carrier and a conference shall make
available a schedule of transportation rates which shall
include the rates, terms, and conditions for transportation
services not governed by an ocean transportation contract,
and shall provide the schedule of transportation rates, in
writing, upon the request of any person. A common carrier and
a conference may assess a reasonable charge for complying
with a request for a rate, term, and condition, except that
the charge may not exceed the cost of providing the
information requested.
``(2) A dispute between a common carrier or conference and
a person as to the applicability of the rates, terms, and
conditions for ocean transportation services shall be decided
in an appropriate State or Federal court of competent
jurisdiction, unless the parties otherwise agree.
``(3) A claim concerning a rate for ocean transportation
services which involves false billing, false classification,
false weighing, false report of weight, or false measurement
shall be decided in an appropriate State or Federal court of
competent jurisdiction, unless the parties otherwise agree.
``(b) Contract Carriage.--
``(1) 1 or more common carriers or a conference may enter
into an ocean transportation contract with 1 or more
shippers. A common carrier may enter into ocean
transportation contracts without limitations concerning the
number of ocean transportation contracts or the amount of
cargo or space involved. The status of a common carrier as an
ocean common carrier is not affected by the number or
terms of ocean transportation contracts entered.
``(2) A party to an ocean transportation contract entered
under this section shall have no duty in connection with
services provided under the contract other than the duties
specified by the terms of the contract.
``(3)(A) An ocean transportation contract or the
transportation provided under that contract may not be
challenged in any court on the grounds that the contract
violates a provision of this Act.
``(B) The exclusive remedy for an alleged breach of an
ocean transportation contract is an action in an appropriate
State or Federal court of competent jurisdiction, unless the
parties otherwise agree.''.
(b) Confidentiality of Contracts.--Effective on January 1,
1998, section 8(b) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App.
U.S.C. 1707(b)), as amended by subsection (a) of this
section, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) A contract entered under this section may be made on
a confidential basis, upon agreement of the parties. An ocean
common carrier that is a member of a conference agreement may
not be prohibited or restricted from agreeing with 1 or more
shippers that the parties to the contract will not disclose
the rates, services, terms, or conditions of that contract to
any other member of the agreement, to the conference, to any
other carrier, shipper, conference, or to any other third
party.''.

SEC. 107. PROHIBITED ACTS.

Section 10 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C.
1709) is amended--
(1) effective on January 1, 1997, by amending subsection
(b)--
(A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) except for service contracts, subject a person,
place, port, or shipper to unreasonable discrimination;'';
and
(B) by repealing paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (8);
(2) effective on June 1, 1997, by amending subsection (b)
to read as follows:
``(b) Common Carriers.--No common carrier, either alone or
in conjunction with any other person, directly or indirectly,
may--
``(1) except for ocean transportation contracts, subject a
person, place, port, or shipper to unreasonable
discrimination;
``(2) retaliate against any shipper by refusing, or
threatening to refuse, cargo space accommodations when
available, or resort to other unfair or unjustly
discriminatory methods because the shipper has patronized
another carrier or has filed a complaint, or for any other
reason;
``(3) employ any fighting ship;
``(4) subject any particular person, locality, class, or
type of shipper or description of traffic to an unreasonable
refusal to deal;
``(5) refuse to negotiate with a shippers' association;
``(6) knowingly and willfully accept cargo from or
transport cargo for the account of an ocean freight forwarder
that does not have a bond, insurance, or other surety as
required by section 19;
``(7) knowingly and willfully enter into an ocean
transportation contract with an ocean freight forwarder or in
which an ocean freight forwarder is listed as an affiliate
that does not have a bond, insurance, or other surety as
required by section 19; or
``(8)(A) knowingly disclose, offer, solicit, or receive any
information concerning the nature, kind, quantity,
destination, consignee, or routing of any property tendered
or delivered to a common carrier without the consent of the
shipper or consignee if that information--
``(i) may be used to the detriment or prejudice of the
shipper or consignee;
``(ii) may improperly disclose its business transaction to
a competitor; or
``(iii) may be used to the detriment or prejudice of any
common carrier;

except that nothing in paragraph (8) shall be construed to
prevent providing the information, in response to legal
process, to the United States, or to an independent neutral
body operating within the scope of its authority to fulfill
the policing obligations of the parties to an agreement
effective under this Act. Nor shall it be prohibited for any
ocean common carrier that is a party to a conference
agreement approved under this Act, or any receiver, trustee,
lessee, agent, or employee of that carrier, or any other
person authorized by that carrier to receive information, to
give information to the conference or any person, firm,
corporation, or agency designated by the conference or to
prevent the conference or its designee from soliciting or
receiving information for the purpose of determining whether
a shipper or consignee has breached an agreement with a
conference or for the purpose of determining whether a member
of the conference has breached the conference agreement or
for the purpose of compiling statistics of cargo movement,
but the use of that information for any other purpose
prohibited by this Act or any other Act is prohibited; and
``(B) after December 31, 1997, the rates, services, terms,
and conditions of an ocean transportation contract may not be
disclosed under this paragraph if the contract has been made
on a confidential basis under section 8(b) of this Act.

The exclusive remedy for a disclosure under this paragraph
shall be an action for breach of contract as provided in
section 8(b)(3) of this Act.'';
(3) effective on June 1, 1997--
(A) in subsection (c)(5), by inserting ``as defined in
section 3(14)(A) of this Act'' after ``freight forwarder'';
and
(B) in subsection (c)(6), by striking ``a service
contract.'' and inserting ``an ocean transportation
contract.'';
(4) effective on June 1, 1997, in subsection (d)(3), by
striking ``(b) (11), (12), and (16)'' and inserting ``(b)
(1), (4), and (8)''; and

[[Page H4346]]

(5) effective on June 1, 1997, by adding a new subsection
(f) to read as follows:
``(f) Conference Action.--No conference may subject a
person, place, port, class or type of shipper, or ocean
freight forwarder, to unjust or unreasonable ocean contract
provisions.''.

SEC. 108. REPARATIONS.

Effective June 1, 1997, section 11(g) of the Shipping Act
of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1710(g)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or counter-complainant'' after
``complainant'' the second time it appears;
(2) by striking ``10(b) (5) or (7)'' and inserting ``10(b)
(2) or (3)''; and
(3) by striking the last sentence.

SEC. 109. FOREIGN LAWS AND PRACTICES.

Section 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988
(46 App. U.S.C. 1710a) is amended, effective on June 1,
1997--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``non-vessel-operating common carrier,'';
and
(B) by inserting ``ocean freight forwarder,'' after ``ocean
common carrier,'';
(2) in subsection (a)(4), by striking ``non-vessel-
operating common carrier operations,'';
(3) in subsection (e)(1), by striking subparagraph (B) and
all that follows through subparagraph (D) and inserting the
following:
``(B) suspension, in whole or in part, of the right of an
ocean common carrier to operate under any agreement filed
with the Secretary, including agreements authorizing
preferential treatment at terminals, preferential terminal
leases, space chartering, or pooling of cargo or revenues
with other ocean common carriers; and
``(C) a fee, not to exceed $1,000,000 per voyage.''; and
(4) in subsection (h), by striking ``section 13(b)(5) of
the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1712(b)(5))'' and
inserting ``section 13(b)(2) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46
App. U.S.C. 1712(b)(2))''.

SEC. 110. PENALTIES.

Section 13 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C.
1712) is amended, effective on June 1, 1997--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (3) and redesignating
paragraphs (2), (4), (5), and (6) in order as paragraphs (1),
(2), (3), and (4);
(B) by striking paragraph (1), as so redesignated, and
inserting the following:
``(1) If the Secretary 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 1711 of this Act, the Secretary 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 Secretary, 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 App. U.S.C. 91).'';
and
(C) in paragraph (3), as so redesignated, by striking
``finds appropriate,'' and all that follows through the end
of the paragraph and inserting ``finds appropriate including
the imposition of the penalties authorized under paragraph
(2).'';
(2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``section 10 (a)(1),
(b)(1), or (b)(4)'' and inserting ``section 10(a)(1)''.

SEC. 111. REPORTS.

(a) In General.--Section 15 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46
App. U.S.C. 1714) is amended, effective on January 1, 1997--
(1) in the section heading by striking ``and
certificates'';
(2) by striking ``(a) Reports.--''; and
(3) by striking subsection (b).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App.
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) is amended in the first section in the
table of contents by amending the item relating to section 15
to read as follows:

``Sec. 15. Reports.''.

SEC. 112. REGULATIONS.

Section 17 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C.
1716) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a)''; and
(2) by striking subsection (b).''.

SEC. 113. REPEAL.

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

SEC. 114. OCEAN FREIGHT FORWARDERS.

Section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C.
1718) is amended, effective on June 1, 1997--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``in the United
States'' after ``person'' the first time it appears;
(2) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``a bond'' and
inserting ``a bond, proof of insurance, or other surety'';
(3) by adding after subsection (a)(2) the following:

``A bond, insurance, or other surety obtained pursuant to
this section shall be available to pay any judgment for
damages against an ocean freight forwarder arising from its
transportation-related activities under this Act or order for
reparation issued pursuant to section 11 or 14 of this Act.
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) in subsection (b), by striking ``a bond'' and inserting
``a bond, proof of insurance, or other surety''; and
(5) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3) and
redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).''.

SEC. 115. EFFECTS ON CERTAIN AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS.

Section 20(e) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C.
1719) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Savings Provisions.--
``(1) Each service contract entered into by a shipper and
an ocean common carrier or conference before the date of the
enactment of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1995 may remain
in full force and effect according to its terms.
``(2) This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall
not affect any suit--
``(A) filed before the date of the enactment of the Ocean
Shipping Reform Act of 1995;
``(B) with respect to claims arising out of conduct engaged
in before the date of the enactment of the Ocean Shipping
Reform Act of 1995, filed within 1 year after the date of the
enactment of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1995;
``(C) with respect to claims arising out of conduct engaged
in after the date of the enactment of the Ocean Shipping
Reform Act of 1995 but before January 1, 1997, pertaining to
a violation of section 10(b) (1), (2), (3), (4), or (8), as
in effect before January 1, 1997, filed by June 1, 1997;
``(D) with respect to claims pertaining to the failure of a
common carrier or conference to file its tariffs or service
contracts in accordance with this Act in the period beginning
January 1, 1997, and ending June 1, 1997, filed by December
31, 1997; or
``(E) with respect to claims arising out of conduct engaged
in on or after the date of the enactment of the Ocean
Shipping Reform Act of 1995 but before June 1, 1997, filed by
December 31, 1997.''.

SEC. 116. REPEAL.

Section 23 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C.
1721) is repealed, effective on June 1, 1997.

SEC. 117. MARINE TERMINAL OPERATOR SCHEDULES.

(a) In General.--The Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C.
1701 et seq.) is amended, effective on June 1, 1997, by
adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 24. MARINE TERMINAL OPERATOR SCHEDULES.

``A marine terminal operator shall make available to the
public a schedule of rates, regulations, and practices,
including limitations of liability, pertaining to receiving,
delivering, handling, or storing property at its marine
terminal. The schedule shall be enforceable as an implied
contract, without proof of actual knowledge of its
provisions, for any activity by the marine terminal operator
that is taken to--
``(1) efficiently transfer property between transportation
modes;
``(2) protect property from damage or loss;
``(3) comply with any governmental requirement; or
``(4) store property in excess of the terms of any other
contract or agreement, if any, entered into by the marine
terminal operator.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App.
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) is amended in the first section in the
table of contents by adding at the end the following new
item:

``Sec. 24. Marine terminal operator schedules.''.

amendment offered by mr. oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar: Page 10, line 23, strike
``(5)'' and insert ``(5)(A)''.
Page 11, line 7, strike the closing quotation marks and the
final period.
Page 11, after line 7, insert the following:
``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the essential terms
of a contract entered into under this section shall be made
publicly available electronically in a manner prescribed by
the Commission. This subparagraph does not apply to service
contracts dealing with bulk cargo, forest products, recycled
metal scrap, waste paper, or paper waste.
``(C) For purpose of subparagraph (B), the essential terms
of a contract shall include--
``(i) the origin and destination port ranges in the case of
port-to-port movements, and the original and destination
geographic areas in the case of through intermodal movements;
``(ii) the commodity or commodities involved;
``(iii) the minimum volume;
``(iv) the line-haul rate;
``(v) the duration;
``(vi) service commitments; and
``(vii) the liquidated damages for nonperformance, if
any.''.
Page 14, line 11, insert ``except as provided by section
8(b)(4)(B),'' after ``(B)''.
At the end of section 301(a) of the bill insert the
following:

The Secretary of Transportation shall delegate such
functions, powers, and duties to the Surface Transportation
Board.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be able to
proceed for an additional 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?

[[Page H4347]]

There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] is
recognized for a total of 10 minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires that the
essential terms of ocean transportation contracts be disclosed to the
public. The amendment transfers, in addition, the remaining functions
of the Federal Maritime Commission to the Surface Transportation Board
within the Department of Transportation rather than to the secretary to
ensure that investigations and decisions about ocean shipping are done
in an unbiased and nonpolitical manner. Those are the only changes my
amendment makes to the bill.
In evaluating the request of secret contracts, we have to remember
that international shipping operates in a very different environment
than any other mode in our domestic transportation industry. Over 85
percent of the containerized shipments in and out of our ports go on
foreign-flagged ships.
Most of this cargo is transported on ships operated under a
conference or a cartel agreement. Many foreign carriers have many
agendas. Some are controlled by their governments, some are vertically
integrated with manufacturing companies, some are motivated by their
brand of nationalism, some will do whatever necessary to drive their
competitors out of the marketplace.
Into such a complex system will this bill allow secret contracts. I
do not think it is in the interest of our ports, our manufacturers,
U.S. consumers, or the Nation to allow secret contracts negotiated
behind closed doors to determine the fate of our international trade.
There have been no hearings on this legislation in our committee. No
testimony was received on the impact of that provision of the bill.
Potential opponents were not given an opportunity to voice their
concerns about it in open hearings. However, the Senate's hearing on an
identical bill raised a number of problems about this particular issue
of secret contracts.
Mr. Chairman, the basis of this bill is to promote competition, but
it will result in less competition. With secret contracts, rates likely
will fall below levels that provide an adequate return on assets or
investments. I quoted earlier Mr. Clancy, President and CEO of Sealand
Services, one of the world's largest ocean carriers and a major
supporter of this bill.

{time} 1645

He sees the result of this bill: that in a few years, a few giant
super shipping consortia with global reach will control 85 to 90
percent of the world's container ships. There will be one cartel in the
Atlantic, one in the Pacific, and one in the Asia-Europe trade. He
believes it will be the demise of the niche carrier, of the feeder
line, of the North-South shipping lines between North and South
America. The types of carriers he believes will disappear are carriers
such as Crowley Maritime and Tropical Shipping. Secret agreements will
be the major weapon megacarriers are going to use to achieve their
goals of consolidating power in the shipping industry.
This provision will allow large companies to offer lower rates to
larger shippers, and if smaller shippers and carriers are unaware of
the deals, they are going to find it difficult to compete. The end
result will be exactly what Mr. Clancy predicts: the demise of niche
carriers, feeder lines, and North-South lines.
Let us look at the impact on small- and medium-sized shippers and on
manufacturers and retailers. With secret contracts it will be virtually
impossible to enforce any of the prohibitions in the bill. For example,
under the act, a carrier or a group of carriers may not retaliate
against any shipper who has patronized another carrier or filed a
complaint. How will anyone be able to tell if there has been
retaliation or discrimination if all contracts are going to be kept
confidential? With the secret contracts, small- and medium-sized
shippers will likely pay more, not less, in the short run and the rates
they pay will increase even more in the long run.
Everyone acknowledges that confidential contracts will lower the
rates paid by the large shippers, of course. But 70 percent of the
carriers' costs are fixed. Who is going to make up the difference when
the large shippers get the rate breaks? Obviously, the ones who are
going to make up the differences are going to be the small- and medium-
sized shippers.
If Mr. Clancy's plans succeed and the cartels controlled 85 to 90
percent of the world's shipping, then we are going to see increased use
of secret contracts from large shippers and higher rates for these
small- and medium-sized carriers, and they will be driven right out of
the marketplace.
What about our ports and our infrastructure? Ports in their
communities have invested billions of dollars in developing their port
facilities through local taxes and bond issues. But when these
consortia enter into secret deals under the protection of antitrust
immunity, they are going to drive the small carrier out of business,
the very tenants in those ports that pay the rent to pay off the bonds.
When U.S. Lines, for example, went bankrupt, it left the port of New
York with a vacant terminal. That terminal has been vacant for 15
years. Who paid for the construction? The port of New York-New Jersey.
Who paid for the financing of an empty terminal? The port of New York-
New Jersey. Do we want to see that repeated all over the country?
With the demise of small carriers in a regime of secret agreements,
surviving large carriers will consolidate their operations at the
larger ports. Carriers will stop calling at many of the smaller ports.
Jobs, public investment, will be lost.
One of the fundamental purposes of the 1984 act was to reach a
balance by legalizing international cartels with antitrust immunity,
but requiring public disclosure of the agreements between the carriers
in the cartel and the essential terms of the contract between carriers
and shippers, so everyone would know that ports, manufacturers,
retailers, consumers in the United States are not being discriminated
against.

The contracts in this bill will promote survival of cartels and
survival of large carriers. There may be a short-term decrease in rates
as they use market power to drive small and independent carriers out of
business. But when, as the chairman of Sea Land predicts, there are
only three cartels left controlling 85 to 90 percent of the world
trade, rates are going to go up. They are going to put U.S. exporters
out of business or at a disadvantage in the international market. We
should not launch that process here with this legislation.
The overriding purpose of shipping laws should be to ensure that the
small as well as the large shipper is able to have their goods shipped
anywhere in the world at a competitive price.
My other concern is that the bill transfers the remaining functions
of the FMC to the Secretary of Transportation instead of an independent
regulatory panel. The former FMC responsibilities would not
appropriately be exercised by an independent panel. So my amendment
would do that. My amendment will do that.
The Republic of China, for example, has restricted the ability of
U.S. carriers to operate terminals and freight forwarding operations in
China, even though we allow Chinese carriers to conduct these same
operations in the United States. The Japanese Government imposes a
harbor tax that does not benefit navigation, but only increases the
price of United States exports to Japan.
I believe we ought to have an independent body, insulated from
pressures by the State Department, to pursue elimination of trade
barriers. That is why I propose that we transfer this function to the
Surface Transportation Board.
My amendment leaves in place elimination of the Federal Maritime
Commission; elimination of tariff filing and regulation by the
Government; restrictions on the contents of contracts between shippers
and carriers are eliminated; laws related to unfair trade practices of
foreign carriers and foreign governments will be strengthened;
conferences will not be able to prevent their members from making
individual, lower cost ocean transportation contracts with shippers.
We deal with two shortcomings of the legislation. Airlines do not
have antitrust immunity for anything domestically. Shipping conferences
have antitrust immunity for point-to-point

[[Page H4348]]

rates. No other mode of transportation has antitrust immunity for
point-to-point rates. We should not allow secret deals to be made under
such protection.
My amendment will make this bill acceptable in the other body,
acceptable to the administration. It will make it possible for us to
enact good deregulation. I urge support for the amendment I have set
forth.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. Chairman, we already had exhaustive debate on this issue, so I
will attempt to be brief. First, though I would like to again correct
what perhaps was a misstatement. My good friend, the gentleman from
Minnesota, said, ``secret deals under protection of antitrust
immunity.'' This legislation does not provide antitrust immunity for
private contracts. We have said it several times. I hate to be
repetitive. But the antitrust immunity only applies to where the
tariffs are set. So again I emphasize that point. As a matter of fact,
if anybody doubts it, read the bill.
Second, the ability to negotiate private contracts with carriers was
the bottom line in the compromise for all our U.S. shippers.
Third, every other mode of transportation has this ability to
negotiate private contracts. The airlines have it, the trucks have it,
the rails have it. Every other mode has it except for ocean shipping.
That is one of the fundamental reforms here which will create more
competition.
Again, while my dear friend stood up now and said how harmful this is
going to be, less than a month ago he said, ``Shippers and consumers
will pay less for their products. The ports will be handling more
cargoes and the ocean carriers will have a more competitive operating
environment.''
I recognize, as of last Friday night, things changed. And what
changed, of course, was that some of the labor unions decided at the
last minute to try to get another bite at the apple to oppose it. But
it is important to emphasize that the seafarers, who are most directly
affected by this legislation, support the bill as we bring it to the
floor.
Mr. Chairman, for all of those reasons, I will not belabor the point.
We have debated it.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Oberstar amendment to the
Ocean Shipping Reform Act.
Mr. Chairman, I support the provisions of the Ocean Shipping Reform
Act which abolish the Federal Maritime Commission. But I am proud of
the work this agency has done to combat unfair foreign shipping
practices that injure U.S. carriers and U.S. importers and exporters.
Since 1920, we have successfully fought commercial cargo preference
programs of foreign governments, restrictions on carrier operations,
restrictions on port operations, and foreign taxes designed to limit
imports from the United States. The FMC has experienced a remarkable
success rate--100 percent. They have never failed to get the foreign
government to eliminate their unfair practice--not once.
One of the major reasons for this glaring success is the independent
nature of the agency. They are insulated from pressures from the State
Department that may have other foreign policy objectives with the
country involved. Only the President can overrule a finding by the
Commission on an unfair foreign trade practice. No President has ever
done this. Last summer when H.R. 2149 was reported out of committee,
the Surface Transportation Board did not exist. The Surface
Transportation Board, or Surf-Board, was created by the ICC Termination
Act to take over the remaining functions of the ICC. It is an
independent board within the Department of Transportation, insulated
from the politics of the executive branch. The name of the board is
deceiving--it does much more than regulate surface transportation.
It currently regulates all of the water carriers transporting goods
from the continental United States to Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and
Guam. These trade routes had been regulated by the FMC. The Surf-Board
has the experience and expertise necessary to handle the FMC's
regulatory issues.
Even with the reforms in H.R. 2149, the statutes which govern
international ocean transportation will require an agency to perform
many important oversight functions. Fairness and impartiality require
that these functions be performed by an independent agency, not a
political department of the Executive Branch.
For example, the agency will need to resolve all allegations by U.S.
or foreign shippers or U.S. ports that they have been discriminated
against or have been denied service by one or a group of ocean
carriers. The agency will also be required to review agreements among
ocean carriers to ensure the agreements are not anti-competitive. The
funding of collectively bargained fringe benefit obligations must be
overseen by the agency. Finally, the agency must administer laws
governing unfair trading practices by foreign governments related to
the shipping industry. All of these functions demand an independent
agency with expertise in maritime issues. They should not be held
captive to political winds and special interest favors.
Finally, I support the Oberstar amendment because it would provide
for the supervision of all transportation systems under one board--the
Surface Transportation Board. In today's environment of intermodalism,
this makes sense. The Surf-Board regulates rail roads, motor carriers,
and water carriers engaged in our domestic transportation system. Now,
with the Oberstar amendment, it can supervise intermodal movements with
those carriers in our international trades as well.
I call on my colleagues to support the Oberstar amendment. Surely,
the transferal of the FMC's functions to an independent agency with the
expertise to govern the shipping trade is something on which we can all
agree. America's business and shipping interests are at stake. Support
the Oberstar amendment--it protects American business and the consumer.
This approach only makes sense.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and speak in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee and the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina, for
their insight, and indeed the ranking member, the gentleman from
Minnesota, for some of his thoughts earlier today on this.
Mr. Chairman, I will confess I am new to this process. I came from
the outside world. I am not a career politician. Getting here has been
a rather eye-opening experience. I have noted with great interest the
disdain that many of my constituents have for what they term
``gridlock'' or almost a playground type of contentious debate that
happens here.
While major policy differences should be discussed and indeed debated
in this Chamber, and we champion that, and indeed we champion
differences in opinion, I cannot help but notice the irony of the
situation in which the Committee of the Whole House finds itself today
with reference to this piece of legislation.
Again, even taking into account the comments of my good friend, the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking member, I just
note the irony that fairly drips from the comments of August 1, 1995,
from my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota: ``This bill injects
a very healthy and significant dose of flexibility of competitive
opportunity into the carrier and shipper relationship. That was the aim
of my bill. I am pleased to see we are taking that tack in this
legislation. It is what will be good for ocean shipping.'' So said my
good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, in August.
Indeed, as I understand, hearing from my good friend, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, essentially this point
of view prevailed until what legislatively, Mr. Chairman, becomes the
very last nanosecond of the 11th hour, when those who sought to find
fault with the legislation chose to step in and inject the whole notion
of union bossism into this process.

{time} 1700

Now, this is a free country and certainly those special interests
have a

[[Page H4349]]

chance to stand up and say ``no.'' But, Mr. Chairman, what is the
prevalent difference?
Now we find, Mr. Chairman, that confidential agreements, a hallmark
of doing business in almost every commercial endeavor, are suddenly
given the name rhetorically, secret agreements, as if there is
something ominous, as if the entire practice of doing business is
somehow protected. But then again, what are we to expect of those who
constantly propagate a philosophy that would tell us that taxes are
really just investments in government growth, and that Washington knows
best, and it must always be the constant oversight of some governmental
body into every endeavor; only that process, only Washington knows
best, only government exercise of oversight can ensure the true and
property aims of business.
Mr. Chairman, I assert that if it is good in other areas of
transportation deregulation, if confidential agreements and other
essential staples of the business process are good in the deregulation
that has gone on in other sectors of transportation, why now, at the
very last nanosecond of the 11th hour, are there problems? This is a
good piece of legislation as it stands. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support
of the legislation as presented. I oppose the Oberstar amendment.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, the
distinguished ranking member.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his courtesies.
I am sorry that the gentleman from Arizona exhibited such discourtesy
in displaying a quote up there which is incomplete, takes out of
context or at least leaves out conveniently something I did say. I am
glad he thought it was important to quote what I said. I have quoted
myself, and I do not need to be quoted in a poster by the gentleman
from Arizona and then have part of it left out.
I supported the legislation as it was pending in committee. I said it
accomplishes preservation of the conference carrier system, which is
important to carriers, and injects a healthy and significant dose of
flexibility. Put the whole thing in context. Do not just quote part of
what I said.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Oberstar amendment to
protect the small-and medium-sized ports, the small shippers, and the
working people of the Nation.
I compliment the gentleman from Minnesota, the ranking member of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, for offering this
amendment.
It is absolutely vital for the survival of the small- and medium-
sized ports in this country that rates between conferences and shippers
be open for public scrutiny.
The committee bill allows those rates to be kept secret--a practice
that will allow conferences to become cartels that will put everyone in
their way out of business.
The secrecy provision will allow big carriers to cut deals with big
shippers that get rid of most of the Nation's ports, many small
shipping companies and tens of thousands of jobs.
Without the Oberstar amendment, H.R. 2149 is a protection bill for
big business and big shippers.
This amendment maintains the public disclosure requirements that were
enacted in 1984 and have worked well.
It will provide protection for small and medium-sized ports, for
small shippers and for tens of thousands of jobs at the 90 percent of
the ports in this country that will be put at risk by this bill.
We can reform the ocean shipping laws without giving our endorsement
to cartels and without promoting the elimination of virtually every one
of our Nation's ports.
We can reform the ocean shipping laws without jeopardizing tens of
thousands of jobs throughout the country.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2149 has it backwards. It provides help and
protection for the big guys when we should be providing that help for
the small shippers and the small- and medium-sized ports.
The Oberstar amendment will correct problems with the bill by
maintaining the system that has worked since 1984.
The Oberstar amendment is needed so that the thousands who depend on
ports along with the Nation's consumers, are not trampled in this rush
to rewrite shipping laws in a way that helps only the big ports, the
big carriers and the big shippers.
Without the Oberstar amendment, H.R. 2149 is a job killer and should
be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the Oberstar amendment.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I became quite concerned when my good friend said that
only part of his quote was included, so I have the full quote here and
I do not believe it changes the thrust of what was said at all. But
nevertheless, in order to be totally fair, I want to insert the entire
quote into the Record, which is the following:

The bill accomplishes preservation of the committee carrier
system, which is important to the carriers, but it also
injects a very healthy and significant dose of flexibility,
of competitive opportunity into the carrier and shipper
relationship. That was the aim of my bill. I am pleased to
see we are taking that tack in this legislation. It is what
will be good for ocean shipping.

That is the complete quote of my good friend, and I think it is
important to put it in the Record so the Record is clear.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, that is what I attempted to do with the
quote of the gentleman from Arizona, or that he attempted to represent
as attributed to me. But the point is, what I said there does not bear
on the subject of our debate this afternoon.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will just make a brief statement here.
Coming from northwest Iowa and a very large agricultural district, I am
quite concerned about how this amendment would affect agriculture and
agricultural exports. A few of the groups that support this legislation
and oppose the amendment, the American Farm Bureau, the Blue Diamond
Growers, National Broiler Council, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Pork
Producers Council, National Turkey Federation, United Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Association, oppose the Oberstar amendment and support the
legislation as is.
I think it is critical to look as far as how it affects agriculture,
the fact that in 1996 we expect to export about 60 billion dollars'
worth of products, and 18 percent of the cost of exporting in the
transportation sector is due to the fact that we have to disclose at
this time what our rates are but our competitors overseas do not have
to disclose their rates. In effect, what is happening is that if when
we post our rates, our competitors come in and see what it is and just
simply undercut us and we lose that business, but we still pay a
premium here and it certainly is unfair.
I cannot quite understand why an amendment would be offered, I guess,
that would undercut agriculture, the gentleman I know is from Minnesota
and has large agricultural exports that would cause such problems for
agriculture itself. I just strongly oppose this amendment because of
the effect, that one of the bright parts of this legislation is the
fact that we will be competitive in the world. As we move forward into
the next millennium, it is essential that we are on an equal playing
field in agriculture in all of our exports. That is why I strongly
oppose this amendment and support the bill as it is.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words in support of the Oberstar amendment.
I want to salute the ranking member [Mr. Oberstar] for his creative
and market-oriented proposal. This amendment is precisely what should
have been done in the committee process, an

[[Page H4350]]

open discussion of the meaning and implication of the legislation.
I am no enemy of deregulation, and believe all of us who are
supporting Mr. Oberstar are of the same view. I personally wrote the
New Jersey Telecommunications Act, which substantially deregulated the
industry and modernized my State phone system into a national
telecommunications leader. I have voted for similar proposals here in
the House.
I think there are constructive measures that will improve ocean
transportation, but it cannot be a backroom deal. The Oberstar
amendment has broken the code. Look at the bill. What does the term
``confidential agreement'' mean? If we are deregulating this industry,
why do we have to include authorization for confidential contracts?
The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] has it right. Secret
deals. This bill is carteling in its purest form, secret
deals, antitrust immunity and no Government oversight. Do we really
think the small shipper has any chance in the face of this monopoly
power? To the friends of small businesses in this Congress, you have
got to think, your transportation price may go down in the short term
just long enough to consolidate the vast grants of monopoly power, and
then you will pay and you will pay dearly.

Chairman Shuster has stated correctly that antitrust immunity covers
only the conference rate and not rates negotiated by an individual
carrier, but in reality both rates are part of a package. The carriers
are allowed to get together under antitrust immunity to set a
conference rate. Each carrier is then free to depart from this rate on
a selective basis.
To evaluate antitrust immunity we need to know when the conference
rate is followed and when it is not. Are special rates being made
available only to certain large shippers? Is the conference rate set
under antitrust immunity subsidizing discount rates for larger
carriers? If individual agreements are secret as they would be under
H.R. 2149, we will never know.
Mr. Oberstar's amendment says yes to smaller Government, it says yes
to less regulation, it says yes to savings in the budget, but it says
no to secret deals and cartels. If this legislation is enacted, only
the largest shippers will benefit from secretive shipping contracts
that discriminate against smaller shippers, and these secret deals will
allow Fortune 100 corporations to avoid public disclosure and to use
their already potent market powers to exact privileged rates while
smaller shippers, businesses and carriers, their employees and ports
across the Nation will be left defenseless.
Clearly, the thousands of smaller businesses that rely on the
transparency of prices, and the level playing field that provides--we
heard a lot about that in the Telecommunications Act that was passed
here in the House, that everybody starting on a level playing field,
about transparency. That is in fact what we are arguing for here. If
not, we will be forced to pay higher rates and thus subsidize the
larger more powerful competitors.
For American ports and thousands of longshore, warehousing, trucking,
rail, and related industry employees in and around port communities,
this unfair pricing and operating environment could lead to severe
economic dislocation, declining wages, and job loss, and that is
something we cannot afford. That is why the American Association of
Port Authorities recently joined transportation labor and many smaller
shippers to oppose H.R. 2149 in its present form.
The Oberstar amendment would eliminate a Federal agency, it would
allow for sensible ocean shipping reforms, but it would ensure the
essential terms of contracts are not kept in secret at the expense of
ports, shippers, employees, and other shipping interests. That is why
it deserves our unanimous support, and that is why we urge all of our
colleagues to be voting for it.

{time} 1715

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I was back in my office watching this debate, and I
thought I was living in the sixties and the seventies. The same
arguments that those that support the Oberstar amendment were made time
and time again in opposition to the deregulation of trucking, to the
deregulation of aviation, to the deregulation of railroads. Small
communities will not be served. We have got to have tariffs filed so
that everybody can see them. We have got to have the Government
involved or small shippers will not be able to find somebody to carry
their goods.
How many times have we heard these arguments in trucking, in
aviation, in railroads? And you know what? Not one of those arguments
came true in those modes of transportation. Not one.
In fact, just the opposite happened, because those of us that oppose
the Oberstar amendment believe in the free enterprise system, believe
that in competition the quality of service goes up, the number of
people that offer themselves for service goes up, and the cost of
transportation goes down. It is not artificially held up, because the
Government knows best. That is what the Oberstar amendment is
attempting to do, to change a very well-crafted compromise in this
bill.
I have to tell you if I was writing this bill and I had the votes, it
would not be this bill, because in this bill the chairman crafted a
bipartisan, at least at the time, a bipartisan compromise to take care
of some of the concerns of those that do not believe in the free market
system. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, and it has already been
expressed here on the floor, at the last minute, this compromise was
rejected.
We ought to be opening up markets. We ought to be allowing shippers
and shipping companies and ocean shipping companies to come together
and, through the free market system, devise contracts that meet the
needs of that market. That is what we are trying to do here.
It worked in trucking. Let me give you an example why I was so
supportive of deregulation of trucking. In my part of the country,
outside of Houston, TX, we have a lot of small towns and they needed
trucking service. But the Government said only one truck line, in a
cartel type way, could service my small towns. The argument was, oh, my
goodness, if you opened it up, that truck line would not go to
Rosenberg, TX, because it is too small a market.

You know what happened in Rosenberg, TX, with the car dealers? They
could not get their parts shipped by this one trucking company that had
authority to carry goods to Rosenberg, TX. So a Hispanic gentleman who
cleaned commodes for one of the car dealers got in a truck and went up
and picked up his parts on the other side of Houston and brought them
back. He said, ``This is a pretty good deal.'' He started going around
to the other car dealers, and they were having the same problem, so he
bought himself a van and started himself a little business, provided a
service that was not being provided by the Government authority given
to one trucking company.
But you know what? They caught him and they said ``You can't do this
anymore, because the government says you can't do it.'' He says, ``Why
not?'' He says, ``Because you got to have a piece of paper from the
government to allow you to go pick up auto parts in Houston and bring
them to Rosenberg.'' ``How do I get that piece of paper?'' ``You have
to hire a lawyer.'' ``How much does a lawyer cost?'' ``Well, it will
cost you at least $25,000, and then you are not guaranteed to get the
authority.''
He went back to cleaning commodes in Rosenberg, TX.
Now, they will say probably oh, well, this does not apply, because we
are talking about large ships and we are talking about small ports and
we are talking about small shippers. The market is the same no matter
whether it is ships or trucks or airplanes or railroads. The point here
is we are trying to move into the 21st century, and the proponents and
the supporters of the Oberstar amendment want to keep us in the 1930's,
when regulation of trucking was first passed, in the 1920's, when
regulation of railroads was passed.
We are in a world economy and we cannot afford the 1930's type
economics.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has
expired.

[[Page H4351]]

(By unanimous consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to run the U.S. economy
based on 1930's economics, and that is what we are trying to do here.
We are trying to change it, to bring America into the 21st century.
Unfortunately, the gentleman from Minnesota wants to keep us in the
1930's.
I urge you to vote ``no'' on the Oberstar amendment.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Oberstar
amendment to H.R. 2149, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1995.
The maritime industry is one of the few industries in the United
States that enjoys full immunity from our antitrust laws. Carriers are
allowed to enter into conferences which are cartels of vessels that
collectively set prices and allocate routes and cargo among its
members. In the Shipping Act of 1984, Congress granted antitrust
immunity of ocean conferences only if the carriers file their rates and
contract terms with the Federal Maritime Commission.
The Ocean Shipping Reform Act, however, would eliminate the
requirement that ocean carriers disclose the essential terms of their
contracts with shippers. Without this disclosure, the large carriers
are likely to enter secret agreements giving major shippers low rates
which could not be offered if the arrangement had to be disclosed.
These secret contracts will create unfair competitive advantages for
large shippers and large carriers, and the larger ports they serve.
This is a real threat to the economic wellbeing and job security of
smaller carriers and the smaller and medium size ports.
H.R. 2149 will not result in an ocean transportation industry
governed by market principles, but will result in a system in which
carrier cartels will operate with legal impunity and large corporations
will be able to secure secret, below cost transportation rates from
carriers, with smaller shippers being charged higher and higher rates
to make up for these concessions to mega-shippers. In other words, this
legislation will simply intensify the alarming trends that already
exist in the maritime industry--bigger and fewer ports, fewer and
larger carriers, and larger shipping conglomerates.

This is why I support the Oberstar amendment; the amendment would
require carriers to file their rates and essential contract terms
electronically. It balances carriers' full antitrust immunity with the
simple requirement that they make the essential terms of their
contracts with shippers public. It ensures that market forces are able
to keep the power of industry conglomerates in check, providing
safeguards to protect our consumers, manufacturers, and ports from
secret deals that discriminate against them.
Like H.R. 2149, the Oberstar amendment sunsets the Federal Maritime
Commission. However, the amendment transfers the remaining enforcement
responsibilities to the Surface Transportation Board, an independent
transportation agency. The Ocean Shipping Reform Act transfers
remaining authority to the Department of Transportation, a far more
politicized cabinet department of the Federal Government.
The Oberstar amendment aims to correct the two fundamental flaws of
the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. The major goal of the Ocean Shipping
Reform Act remains intact, which is to increase competition in the
ocean shipping industry by substantially deregulating the industry. In
fact, it is only with the adoption of this amendment that increased
competition will occur in the maritime industry. I urge my colleagues
to support the Oberstar amendment and then support the bill.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota. The biggest beneficiaries of public ocean transportation
contracts are the foreign-dominated ocean shipping cartels. Public
contracting as continued under the Oberstar amendment to my way of
thinking would simply enhance the ability of these cartels to fix
prices for the transportation of goods in the import and export trade.
The data on ocean shipping confirms that over 85 percent of U.S.
goods are carried aboard foreign vessels, and this amendment would, in
my opinion, simply permit that to continue.
Meanwhile, under the Shuster bill, the committee bill, we would save
18 percent of transportation costs, according to a Department of
Agriculture report. I have got the report right here.
Everybody interested in agriculture, everybody interested in rural
America, everybody interested in the balance of payments benefits that
agriculture provides, everybody who voted for a new change, a market-
oriented farm policy, everybody who voted for freedom to farm,
regardless of your personal opinion about all of the farm program
policies, pay attention.

The Department of Agriculture says:

A cartel premium attributable to conference market power,
the ability to set rates above the competitive level, amounts
to some 18 percent of the cost of ocean transportation.

Turn it around. Look at the benefit to our farm exports if we turn it
around.

The annual gain in agriculture revenues from increased
exports resulting from lower shipping costs would produce an
expected gain of $406 million, 8.1 percent of the total
revenues, including more commodities, more markets. It would
simply magnify the economic effect.

I am quoting from the Maritime Policy and Agriculture Interests
Impacts of the Conference System of the Department of Agriculture.
My experience in the Marine Corps leads me to understand that there
are very few merchant ships left that are registered in the United
States. Now, think a minute. If you publicize the contracts that
primarily benefit our foreign competitors by allowing them to estimate
a U.S. exporter's shipping costs, that simply permits the foreign
carriers to have a great advantage over our U.S. carriers. It is not
only going to hurt them, it is going to hurt all of the exporters, all
of the added value product exporters, and all we are trying to do in
regard to agriculture today.
I am informed by the distinguished chairman that U.S. shippers,
especially the small shippers, support the bill without such an
amendment. So I would urge Members, all members of the House Committee
on Agriculture, all members of the various task forces on either side
of the aisle, to oppose this amendment, and to support not only the
U.S. business, but simply U.S. agriculture, who trade overseas. So
support the U.S. farmer and the producers who really wish to enhance
our agriculture exports. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote against
the Oberstar amendment.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Oberstar
amendment. I represent the city of San Diego. We are engaged in a major
effort with the support of all members of the community to upgrade the
Port of San Diego, to transform the economy of San Diego, to provide
thousands of jobs in the future.
Mr. Chairman, as currently written, this legislation would hurt
smaller-sized ports like the Port of San Diego. By allowing shippers
and carriers to enter into secret and confidential shipping agreements,
the concept of common carriage will effectively disappear. It has been
this concept of the public display of contract terms that has kept
ocean transportation available to small- and medium-sized shippers on
the same terms and conditions as large shippers.
This public disclosure of contract terms stimulates competition and
ensures a level playing field for shippers and ports alike. Keeping
contract details secret would put smaller shippers and ports with niche
markets at a decided disadvantage and unable to match preferential
deals offered by the largest companies and ports.
We should not grant economic advantages to anyone and the Oberstar
amendment ensures this by providing fair and equal opportunity for
everyone--large and small--in ocean transportation: the ports, the
carriers, and the employees of both. The economic well-being of
America's ocean transportation depends on this amendment.

[[Page H4352]]

Keep ocean shipping fair. Vote ``yes'' on Oberstar.

{time} 1730

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to read a quote from a former
colleague of ours in California now: ``For 20 years I have advocated
the orderly economic deregulation of American transportation systems.
Air and ground transportation deregulation have largely been completed,
with consumers and businesses benefiting from less government and more
competition. This new proposal extends deregulation to ocean
transportation. It is a commonsense, balanced proposal, providing a
clear road map and a schedule for ocean freight deregulation.'' Norm
Mineta, June 28, 1995.
Something has happened since then. Something has happened in
Washington since that statement was uttered. And there is more. And my
colleagues will share some of the other statements.
When we look at the partisanship displayed on the floor on this
issue, it is no wonder things are not happening here in Washington. I
heard the last speaker say we should not grant economic opportunities
to select people. Some of us in this Congress feel NAFTA and GATT
granted select opportunities to certain individuals.
In Florida, my agricultural industry is under great pressure from
NAFTA. Tomatoes are almost being run out of business. Citrus is next.
Why do we not pass a bill with bipartisan support on ocean shipping
reform, allowing elimination of tariffs and tariff enforcements, giving
an opportunity to American vessels, American shippers, to be able to
compete in the international marketplace?
NAFTA and GATT were talked about as great incentives for the economic
opportunities of all Americans. All Americans are going to benefit from
NAFTA and GATT. Well, let us extend that great system we have passed on
the floor to ocean shipping. Why leave shippers out of the equation?
But somehow the politics of this House turns on the dime, that thin
dime Mr. Gore spoke of when he talked about minimum wage. When we talk
about minimum wage, they had on the other side 2 years to do it while
they had control. No discussion of minimum wage. Gas tax. All of a
sudden, my God, gases are high. Call Janet Reno, have her investigate.
Gas companies must be in collusion.
Nobody stands here on the floor and says, by God, I passed a 4.3 cent
increase in the gas tax, I wonder if that had something to do with it.
Consumers in American need to know that the taxes passed by this
Congress and State legislatures throughout the Nation add probably 40,
50 cents per gallon of gasoline.
So when you pull up to the pump, do not immediately shout it must be
Exxon's fault. Think of the people in this body that on partisan
rhetoric destroy legislation or attempt to destroy legislation that at
one time, just a short period ago, was fine with Mr. Mineta, apparently
fine with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and others.
Clearly, I would say to my colleagues that we have a bill on this
floor that reforms a system that desperately needs reforming. We have
not had all perfect experiences with deregulation, as people will
testify on transportation, like airlines. But I think, by and large,
the prices consumers pay today to fly from West Palm Beach, FL to
Washington, DC, $137 on a round-trip basis, are largely as a result of
deregulation. Lower prices for consumers, benefiting America,
benefiting the airliners, benefiting everyone involved in the process.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOLEY. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I voted for airline deregulation, and
trucking and bus deregulation, and rail deregulation. But I wanted to
say, since my former colleague is no longer here to explain himself,
that quote was taken at a time when we had a concept of a bill and not
the specific language of a bill. It is not relevant to the present
debate.
Mr. FOLEY. So the gentleman thinks the conversation has changed
completely?
Mr. OBEY. I am saying the quote was taken at a time before there was
an introduced bill. It is not relevant to the bill at hand.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, maybe this is an insight that
we are hearing about, that this was a concept. A bill was worked out,
supposedly a compromise. I have three letters here, one from the AFL-
CIO, one from International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and one from a
group called Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, the
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations,
all dated yesterday.
So my point is I know why from the time that this was a concept and
this quote was made, through the time that a bipartisan effort was put
together, to the time of yesterday, when Mr. Sweeney barked, they
jumped. That is what is going on here. When the Sweeneys and the
Washington union bosses barked, they jumped and changed and took
another tack on this and offered the Oberstar amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOLEY. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the date of that quote is June 28, 1995.
At that time we had issued our release and we spelled out the seven
principles of this bill, and nothing has changed up to this day.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago the House approved the truth in
budgeting act. If there is truth in budgeting, surely there must be
truth in contracting, and that is what the Oberstar amendment does.
I too support the goals of most of the provisions of H.R. 2149,
including the provision which eliminates the Federal Maritime
Commission prohibiting ocean carrier conferences from restricting the
rights of individual carriers to make contracts with shippers and
eliminate the requirement that tariffs must be filed with a Government
agency.
However, I do believe that there should be two modifications to the
bill to meet the concerns which have been raised by consumers, and that
is what the Oberstar amendment does.
The Oberstar amendment is not a killer amendment, it does not gut the
bill. With the amendment, the bill will still take the following
important actions to deregulate the ocean shipping industry: The
Federal Maritime Commission will be eliminated, restrictions on the
contents of contracts between shippers and carriers will be eliminated,
and laws related to unfair trade practices of foreign carriers and
foreign governments will be strengthened.
As I said earlier, a few weeks ago the House approved the truth in
budgeting act. If there is truth in budgeting, surely there must be
truth in contracting.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I just wanted to say that repeatedly my chairman has said that
seagoing maritime labor supports this legislation, and I have called to
find out just what is their position on this matter, and both the
American maritime officers and the seafarers are not in support of the
legislation unless it is amended as we have proposed. I just wanted to
get the record straight.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Oberstar amendment to the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1995.
The Oberstar amendment continues current law requiring the public
disclosure of the terms of ocean and shipping contracts to ensure fair
competition. The amendment also preserves the objectives of the bill to
ease the regulatory burden by eliminating the Federal Maritime
Commission and transferring its authority to the independent Surface
Transportation Board.
Mr. Chairman, all things that are done in darkness will inevitably
come to light. The bill before us was abruptly reported out of
committee without the benefit of public hearings--darkness Mr.
Chairman, darkness. Now, there

[[Page H4353]]

are some Members of this body who seek to keep the consumers in the
dark by prohibiting the public disclosure of the terms of shipping
contracts. If we allow them to prohibit the public disclosure of
information and allow shippers and carriers to enter into back room
deals, we will permit larger shippers and carriers to engage in secret
negotiations and enter into secret contracts. Such secret contracts are
anticompetitive and may have a negative impact on workers by driving
the smaller shipping and carrying companies out of business. This may
well also lead to higher prices for the consumer because of a lack of
competition.
In 1992, when I began my service in the California State legislature,
I did so with a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation. I bring this
same approach to governing with me as I begin my service in this
distinguished body. This amendment enjoys bipartisan support--and let
me tell you why Mr. Chairman. This issue and this amendment is not
about one political party or the other. This issue is about right and
wrong. In my district, in southern Los Angeles County, there is a place
called Mormon Island. On Mormon Island are docks and berths where
warehousemen and longshoremen work hard to earn a living to support
their families. Let me tell you what would happen if we allow this bill
to pass without the Oberstar amendment; larger shippers and carriers
would get together and create deals and agreements without the benefit
of public scrutiny. This would allow those larger companies to lock the
smaller companies out of the industry and force them out of business.
Without the Oberstar amendment, Fortune 100 shipping companies would be
able to avoid public disclosure while hurting the smaller shipping
companies that rely on the transparency of prices. If those companies
are not allowed to compete fairly, on a level playing field, they will
not be able to survive. The warehousemen and longshoremen, the working
people in my district depend on those small companies for employment
and ultimately their livelihoods. In this Congresswoman's opinion, we
would serve our constituents best by supporting fair competition and
maintaining the current law which prohibits shipping companies from
entering into secret contracts.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the consumer, support
fair competition, and support public disclosure by voting ``yes'' on
the Oberstar amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197,
noes 224, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 143]

AYES--197

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--224

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--12

Berman
Bonilla
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Goss
Kaptur
Largent
Molinari
Myers
Solomon
Torricelli
Waxman

{time} 1755

Messrs. HOSTETTLER, BACHUS, and STOCKMAN changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SCHIFF and Mr. PAYNE of Virginia changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to title I?

{time} 1800

The CHAIRMAN. If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
The text of title II is as follows:

TITLE II--CONTROLLED CARRIERS AMENDMENTS

SEC. 201. CONTROLLED CARRIERS.

Section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1708)
is amended, effective on June 1, 1997--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``in its tariffs or
service contracts filed with the Commission'' and ``in those
tariffs or service contracts'' in the first sentence, and by
striking ``filed by a controlled carrier'' in the last
sentence;
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``filed'' and inserting
``published'', in paragraphs (1) and (2);
(3) in subsection (c), by striking the first sentence;
(4) subsection (d) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Within 120 days of the receipt of information
requested by the Secretary under this section, the Secretary
shall determine whether the rates, charges, classifications,
rules, or regulations of a controlled carrier may be unjust
and unreasonable. If so, the Secretary shall issue an order
to the controlled carrier to show cause why those rates,
charges, classifications, rules, or regulations should not be
approved. Pending a determination, the Secretary may suspend
the

[[Page H4354]]

rates, charges, classifications, rules, or regulations at any
time. No period of suspension may be greater than 180 days.
Whenever the Secretary has suspended any rates, charges,
classifications, rules, or regulations under this subsection,
the affected carrier may publish and, after notification to
the Secretary, assess new rates, charges, classifications,
rules, or regulations--except that the Secretary may reject
the new rates, charges, classifications, rules, or
regulations if the Secretary determines that they are
unreasonable.'';
(5) in subsection (f), by striking ``This'' and inserting
``Subject to subsection (g), this''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(g) The rate standards, information submissions,
remedies, reviews, and penalties in this section shall also
apply to ocean common carriers that are not controlled, but
who have been determined by the Secretary to be structurally
or financially affiliated with nontransportation entities or
organizations (government or private) in such a way as to
affect their pricing or marketplace behavior in an unfair,
predatory, or anticompetitive way that disadvantages United
States carriers. The Secretary may make such determinations
upon request of any person or upon the Secretary's own
motion, after conducting an investigation and a public
hearing.
``(h) The Secretary shall issue regulations by June 1,
1997, that prescribe periodic price and other information to
be submitted by controlled carriers and carriers subject to
determinations made under subsection (g) that would be needed
to determine whether prices charged by these carriers are
unfair, predatory, or anticompetitive.''.

SEC. 202. NEGOTIATING STRATEGY TO REDUCE GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP
AND CONTROL OF COMMON CARRIERS.

Not later than January 1, 1997, the Secretary of
Transportation shall develop, submit to Congress, and begin
implementing a negotiation strategy to persuade foreign
governments to divest themselves of ownership and control of
ocean common carriers (as that term is defined in section
3(18) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App. U.S.C. 1702).

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?
If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
The text of title III is as follows:

TITLE III--ELIMINATION OF THE FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

SEC. 301. PLAN FOR AGENCY TERMINATION.

(a) No later than 30 days after enactment of this Act, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall
submit to Congress a plan to eliminate the Federal Maritime
Commission no later than October 1, 1997. The plan shall
include a timetable for the transfer of remaining functions
to the Federal Maritime Commission to the Secretary of
Transportation, beginning as soon as feasible in fiscal year
1996. The plan shall also address matters related to
personnel and other resources necessary for the Secretary of
Transportation to perform the remaining functions of the
Federal Maritime Commission.

(b) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall implement the plan to eliminate the Federal Maritime
Commission, beginning as soon as feasible in fiscal year
1996.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title III?
Are there any further amendments to the bill?

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to clarify a matter with the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on National Security, if he is
on the floor. we have, Mr. Chairman, as far as I know we have, the one
amendment, and it is not controversial. However, there might be a
parliamentary problem with it, and we are attempting right now to clear
that matter with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence],
chairman of the Committee on National Security.
Mr. Chairman, I have parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. SHUSTER. At what title of the bill are we now in consideration?
The CHAIRMAN. We are at the end of the bill, I would advise the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Is it possible to return to an earlier title of the
bill, or is that impossible?
The CHAIRMAN. It can be done by unanimous consent only.
Mr. SHUSTER. I simply am asking a parliamentary inquiry in order to
give my friend from Michigan an opportunity to get to the microphone.

amendment offered by mr. stupak

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak: At the end of the bill,
add the following new title:

TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 401. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE TUGBOATS OF THE NAVY.

(a) Requirement To Transfer Vessels.--The Secretary of the
Navy shall transfer the six obsolete tugboats of the Navy
specified in subsection (b) to the Northeast Wisconsin
Railroad Transportation Commission, an instrumentality of the
State of Wisconsin. Such transfers shall be made as
expeditiously as practicable upon completion of any necessary
environmental compliance agreements.
(b) Vessels Covered.--The requirement in subsection (a)
applies to the six decommissioned Cherokee class tugboats,
listed as of the date of the enactment of this Act as being
surplus to the Navy, that are designated as ATF-105, ATF-110,
ATF-149, ATF-158, ATF-159, and ATF-160.
(c) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require such
terms and conditions in connection with the transfers
required by this section as the Secretary considers
appropriate.

Mr. STUPAK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is relevant to the Ocean
Shipping Act because it deals with maritime commerce on the Great Lakes
and involves foreign commerce with Canada, highly important to my
district and to the region. My amendment, the text of my bill, H.R.
2821, simply attempts to save the American taxpayers a considerable
cost that the U.S. Navy incurs.
Mr. Chairman, let me explain my amendment. I do believe that this
amendment is relevant to the Ocean Shipping Act because it deals with
maritime commerce on the Great Lakes and it involves foreign commerce
on the Great Lakes and it involves foreign commerce with Canada, highly
important to my district and to the region.
My amendment, the text of my bill, H.R. 2821, simply attempts to save
the American taxpayers the considerable costs that the U.S. Navy
currently incurs with the storage of six Cherokee-class tugboats that
are destined for transfer to the Northeast Wisconsin Railroad
Transportation Commission.
These tugboats are obsolete and left over from recent closures of
naval bases and shipyards, including Long Beach in California. They
originally were destined to be scrapped if a deadline of December 31
was not met in achieving a compliance agreement between the railroad
commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jeremy Boorda, personally assured
me the Navy would not go ahead with the planned scrapping of these
vessels if this agreement could be achieved as soon as possible. I have
been informed that the U.S. Navy and Admiral Boorda support my measure
to expedite this transfer, as long as the agreement can be achieved.
I'm pleased to report that the environmental compliance agreement will
be finalized within the next 7 days, according to officials with region
5 of the EPA.
If we cannot enact this transfer within the next few months, than
additional costs for taxpayers will be incurred by forcing the Navy to
tow these vessels up the coast of California to Suisun Bay for
storages. According to the Navy, an additional $25,000 for each tugboat
will have to be spent to place these vessels in interim storage, while
the Navy currently pays more than $100,000 per year to continue the
storage of these six vessels.

The Government shutdowns of last November and December disrupted the
process toward achieving an agreement, and the final details have
finally been resolved.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply attempts to minimize the costs and
expenses that have resulted because of Government shutdowns and delays
in reaching an agreement. Not only would the American taxpayers save,
but the economy of the upper Great Lakes would benefit much sooner if
these tugboats could be placed into service as soon as possible. This
is truly a win-win situation for everyone, for the Navy, for American
taxpayers, and for the economy of the Great Lakes region.
I appreciate the chairman of the committee not objecting, and I want
to thank him, as well as Jim Oberstar, Howard Coble, and Bob Clement
for their assistance. As well, I want to thank the chairman of the
National Security Committee, Floyd Spence, and the former chairman, Ron
Dellums.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we have examined the amendment. We

[[Page H4355]]

have no problem with it. We support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, with those comments from the distinguished
gentleman, I would like to thank him, the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. Spence], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Oberstar], and others for their help on this.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Kingston) having assumed the chair, Mr. Regula, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2149) to
reduce regulation, promote efficiencies, and encourage competition in
the international ocean transportation system of the United States, to
eliminate the Federal Maritime Commission, and for other purposes,
pursuant to House Resolution 419, he reported the bill back to the
House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendments? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 182, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 144]

YEAS--239

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--182

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Chapman
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--12

Berman
Bonilla
Bryant (TX)
Chenoweth
Clay
Goss
Graham
Kaptur
Molinari
Myers
Rogers
Torricelli

{time} 1825

Mr. DICKS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________