Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I further ask that following debate on the Gorton amendment, it be temporarily set aside, and Senator Murray be immediately recognized to offer her amendment; further, that following the debate on the Murray amendment, it be set aside and Senator Coats be recognized to offer an amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I further ask that at 9:30 a.m. Senator Gorton be recognized to offer an amendment regarding block grants.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 22. I further ask that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate immediately resume consideration of H.R. 2646, the A+ education bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to thank John Danforth, the former Senator from Missouri, for initiating the ultimately successful effort to create greater opportunity in public schools to have same-gender classes schools. I was a freshman in 1994. I remember the compelling argument made by Senator Danforth about what an opportunity this would be for a girl like Cyndee Couch, the seventh grader at the Young Women's Leadership school in East Harlem, NY, to have a safe haven where she could learn without worrying about her safety, or her ability to speak out without being made fun of, or in any way not able to be secure in feeling that she could ask questions and participate in the classroom. He also thought about the young girls in the classroom in Maine that were spoken about by Senator Collins today where the school had to go through hoop after hoop after hoop to be able to have an all-girl math class. When they were able to finally do it and break down all the bureaucratic barriers, the test scores have shown that this has been an outstanding success for the girls in that class, without any detriment whatsoever to the other students in that school. What we want and what the Senate has done today is to help pave the way to ensure that every child in America to has this same option. This amendment is not a mandate. We are not saying that same-gender classes are best for everyone. But it has been proven that they are good for some, especially for girls and minority boys, who have demonstrated higher test scores and higher grades when they are allowed to concentrate on their studies, free from the distractions of a coed environment. I am very proud that the Senate has spoken so clearly today in favor of this option for our public school students, an option that I might say is available at private schools, for parents who can afford it. Should this amendment ultimately become law, this same option will become available for many thousands of parents and their children who may not be able to afford private school tuition. In short, the amendment expands the proven benefits of private, same-gender education to the public school system. I am very pleased the Senate has spoken so decisively today on this issue, and I am confident Congress will include it in the final version of this important bill. And this success would not have been possible but for the hard work, vision, and leadership of Jack Danforth, who took-up this cause and in whose footsteps I proudly follow. When he left the Senate and said he would not seek reelection, I told him I would take up the mantle on this issue, and that I would continue his fight to ensure that our nation's schools pursue excellence wherever they may find it. The parents and students of this nation now await the completion of this job, and I urge my colleagues to continue to work for expanded educational opportunities and choices for all Americans. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am so pleased to have the question asked because, of course, this is to allow local school districts to have the option. We are not forcing this on anyone. But where an individual child can best perform in a single-sex classroom, why not let them try it? Are we not going to open our minds and be creative with our public education system? If it is good enough for private education, it should be good enough for public education, and everyone should have the opportunity to do the best in the circumstances that fit them best. I thank the Senator for the question.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, my amendment offers the opportunity, the option to local school districts and parents to choose single-sex classrooms or schools if there are comparable opportunities for both sexes. ``Comparable'' is the word used by the Department of Education and the Supreme Court in the VMI case to determine if there is equal protection under the law. I hope we will allow all of the parents of our country to have this as an option. We have to break out of the box in public education to give options to our parents for what is best for their child. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds to explain the amendment, and then if the Senator would like to take his time, and then I will reserve the last 30 seconds for Senator Collins to close. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms of North Carolina be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is my intention to finish the use of my time. I understand there will be no one speaking against it at this time. So we will close out this debate and go to the next amendment. Mr. President, I just want to speak to the last point, which is the concern about the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court recently struck down the all-male admission policy of Virginia Military Academy on the grounds that it violated equal protection for female applicants because Virginia did not meet the constitutional requirement that there be a comparable facility for women. My amendment clearly requires that there be comparable opportunities for both sexes. Mr. President, we are meeting the constitutional test of the 14th amendment. We are meeting the constitutional test of equal protection, and we are meeting the definition of title IX, and we are adding an option to title VI. In short, what we are trying to do is say that the parents of children who go to public schools should have the option--not any kind of mandate, but the option--in grades K through 12 to allow same-gender classes or same-gender schools to be offered in their school districts. We believe that for some children it is proven that they can excel academically in the lower grades when they are in a same-gender environment. This has been proven with both boys and girls. Why not allow our public schoolchildren to have the same opportunities that parents could choose if they could afford to send their children to private schools? Why not say our education system is failing and the way we are going to improve it and tailor it to individual boys and girls in this country so that they can meet their full potential with the best education that they can receive is to allow more options for our public schools? I believe these options are available now. But because it is not absolutely clear, many public schools are afraid to go forward for fear they might be sued to shut down, which is exactly what is happening to the Young Women's Leadership School in East Harlem that is showing nothing but success. Someone has come in to sue and to say that this violates the Constitution. I argue that it doesn't violate the Constitution; it is required by our Constitution to give our children in our public schools the same opportunities that a child going to private school would have. Let's improve the education system and vote for this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to reserve the balance of my time for after any opponents who might appear.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to be notified at least 4 minutes before the end of my 15-minute allocation, with the intention of giving 2 minutes to the Senator from Georgia to argue in favor, and then I want to reserve the remainder of my time for the end of the debate following any debate opposing my amendment. My amendment simply seeks to give the opportunity to public schools what private schools can now do, and that is offer an option of same- gender classes or schools. I seek to amend the allowable uses of title VI funds for education reform projects that provide same-gender schools and classrooms as long as comparable educational opportunities are offered for students of both sexes. Mr. President, title VI is the place in our education code providing for reform of education to create new and innovative programs to try to improve our public education opportunities in this country. I am offering this amendment to remove a cloud of doubt hanging over the education community about the Federal policy on whether we allow a local decision by a local public school district to operate same-gender schools and classrooms. The amendment is very simple. It adds the establishment and operation of same-gender schools and classes to the allowable uses for funds under title VI. It is not a mandate; it is an option. The title VI program is so broad and flexible that I believe it already allows same- gender education programs. But due largely to the fear that many schools throughout our country have, believing that the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights would not allow same-gender education efforts, most States and school districts are reluctant to use their own money, much less Federal money, for these purposes. This is unfortunate. Ask almost any student or graduate of a same-gender school, most of whom are from private and parochial schools, and they will almost always tell you that they were enriched and strengthened by the experience. Surveys and studies of students show that both boys and girls enrolled in same-gender programs tend to be more competent, more focused on their studies, and ultimately more successful in school as well as later in their careers. We are talking here about K through 12. Specifically, girls report being more willing to participate in class and to take difficult math and science classes that they otherwise would not have attempted. Boys also report less pressure of being put down by their classmates for wanting to participate in class and excel at their studies. Both sexes report feeling more of a camaraderie and sense of peer and teacher support than they do when they are in a coed environment. Teachers, too, report fewer control and discipline problems, something almost any teacher will tell you can consume a good part of class time. Inevitably, these positive student attitudes translate into academic results. Study after study shows that girls and boys in same-gender classes, on average, are academically more successful and ambitious than their coed counterparts. I also note that a recent well-publicized report by the American Association of University Women did not so much challenge the demonstrated benefits of same-gender schools as it called to implement these benefits into coed classrooms. That is exactly the point. For many students, the same-gender schools and classrooms is the most conducive environment for success, precisely because they are same gender. No one would dispute that schools and teachers should strive to maintain order, academic rigor, and treat boys and girls equally. The fact is that in some cases this tends to be easier in a same-gender environment. Same-gender education has benefited students like Cyndee Couch, a seventh grader at Young Women's Leadership school in East Harlem. Cyndee and the other students at this all-girls school, located in a low-income, predominantly African American and Hispanic section of New York City, have an attendance rate of 91.8 percent--significantly above the New York City average. They also score higher on math and science exams than the city average. In fact, 90 percent of the school's students recently scored at or above the grade level on the standardized public school math problem solving test. The citywide average was only 50 percent. Last year, Cyndee bravely appeared on the television show ``60 Minutes'' to talk about why she likes the all-girl public school. She told host Morley Safer, ``As long as I'm in this school and I'm learning and no boys are allowed in the school, I think everything is going to be OK.'' Unfortunately for Cyndee and for other students in fledgling same- gender public school programs around the country, everything is not OK. Opponents of same-gender education have sued to shut down the Young Women's Leadership school and other schools like it around the country. Mr. President, I can't imagine why they would do this. Why would they take away this option for parents in East Harlem of New York City? When they can't choose the environment that they find is more supportive and conducive to learning for their children, what are their options? Whose civil rights are being violated when parents and their children voluntarily enroll in same-gender programs in the hope that they will be able to get a better education and have a better chance at success in life? Who is harmed by that? Mr. President, many of our Nation's public schools are failing in their jobs to adequately prepare our young people for the challenges that face them. After decades of rhetoric about who is to blame for this failure, it is time to stop talking and give more options. We need to find out what works and use it. For many students, same-gender education works. It is certainly not the only answer to our public school woes, but it is one solution that should not be left out of the equation. We are adding to the list of choices. We are not mandating anything. In education, one-size-fits-all is simply not going to work. We have to allow our local schools to have all the choices that can best fit the individual students in their school districts. Some opponents of same gender education may also try to claim that it violates title IX of the Civil Rights Act or the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Both of those arguments are erroneous. Title IX was passed as part of the Education Amendment of 1972. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex at any school receiving Federal financial assistance. Title IX was never intended to prohibit same-gender K-12 education. In fact, with regard to admissions, the language of title IX applies only to higher education institutions that were not same-gender at the time of passage of the provision and to vocational and professional institutions. An earlier version of title IX that would have prohibited same-gender admissions policies, K-12, was specifically defeated in Congress. The language of title IX as well as subsequent judicial interpretations of title IX make it clear that the law does not prohibit same-gender schools. What, then, about same-gender classrooms located at coed schools? Are they prohibited by title IX? The answer again is no. The overriding purpose and intent of title IX is to prohibit discrimination against individuals because of their sex, not to erase any consideration of the different educational needs of boys and girls. There simply is no discrimination if comparable educational opportunities are afforded to each sex, as my amendment requires. Indeed, title IX itself recognizes a number of gender differences in allowing separate programs for physical education, organized sports, and sex education. Even the Department of Education sees same-gender classrooms as acceptable if the school is able to come up with a sufficiently convincing argument that it is doing so to overcome some past discrimination against one sex or the other with regard to that course offering, even though no such proof of past discrimination is required by the language of title IX. I believe the only justification that schools should need to have to institute a single-sex classroom or school is that the school and the parents believe it will provide a better educational opportunity for the parents and children who choose the option. This reflects both the language and the intent of title IX, and what we would do today with this amendment is clarify that that is the will of Congress. Mr. President, I will yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Georgia, after which I will reserve my final 2 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Senate on its adoption of S. 414, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. We have worked long and hard to achieve the consensus necessary to move this bill forward. The revisions that S. 414 would make to the Shipping Act of 1984 will help U.S. shippers, ports, and containership operators succeed in an increasingly competitive world of international trade. I want to thank all Senators who worked on this bill for their key contributions, especially Senator Lott, our distinguished Majority Leader; Senator McCain, Chairman of the Commerce Committee; and Senators Gorton and Breaux who ensured that all affected groups' concerns were thoroughly considered and addressed. I ask the leadership of the House to quickly adopt S. 414 without amendment so that the participants in the ocean liner shipping industry can turn their efforts toward reaping the benefits of these changes. Mr. President, for the record, I now want to explain some of the key provisions of S. 414. The most significant benefit of S. 414 is that it will provide shippers and common carriers with greater choice and flexibility in entering into contractual relationships for ocean transportation and intermodal services. It accomplishes this through seven specific changes to the Shipping Act of 1984. It allows multiple shippers to be parties to the same service contract. It allows service contracts to specify either a percentage or quantity of the shipper's cargo subject to the service contract. It prohibits multiple-ocean common carrier cartels from restricting cartel members from contracting with shippers of their choice independent of the cartel. It allows service contract origin and destination geographic areas, rates, service commitments, and liquidated damages to remain confidential. It eliminates the requirement that similarly situated shippers be given the same service contract rates and service conditions. It eliminates the current restrictions on individual common carriers engaging in discriminatory, preferential, or advantageous treatment of shippers and ocean transportation intermediaries in service contracts (while retaining those restrictions for groups of common carriers and strengthening prohibitions against refusals to deal or negotiate by individual common carriers). It allows groups of ocean common carriers to jointly negotiate inland transportation rates, subject to the antitrust laws and consistent with the purposes of the 1984 Act. The Commerce Committee report on S. 414 dated July 31, 1997, includes in pages 12 through 17 a new legislative history for section 6(g) of the 1984 Act. Although a substitute amendment to the Commerce Committee reported version of S. 414 has been adopted by the Senate, the legislative history for section 6(g) and other sections of the 1984 Act affected by S. 414 contained in the Committee report remains intact, to the extent that the Committee reported provisions of S. 414 are not substantively amended by the substitute amendment, or the Committee report legislative history is not superseded by the below comments. It is anticipated that members of ocean common carrier agreements will enter into individual service contracts with shippers and that, consistent with section 8(c) of the 1984 Act, as amended by S. 414, some of the terms and conditions of those service contracts will not, by agreement of the contracting parties, be publicly available. Section 5(c) of the 1984 Act, as amended by S. 414, states that an agreement of ocean common carriers may not require its members to disclose any service contract negotiations they may have with shippers or the terms and conditions of any service contracts which they may enter into for the transportation of cargo. It is important to note that, while section 5(b) of the 1984 Act applies only to conference agreements, new section 5(c) would apply to all agreements among ocean common carriers, including conference agreements. Any agreement requirement that members disclose confidential contract information would violate section 5(c) and subject agreement members to penalties under the 1984 Act, as amended by S. 414. In the event a member divulged confidential contract information, that member would likely be in breach of its contract with the shipper and could be held liable by the shipper under the contract. However, in the absence of any agreement requirement that disclosure be made, neither that carrier nor any other agreement member would be subject to penalties under the 1984 Act, as amended by S. 414. Section 8(c)(1) of the 1984 Act, as amended by S. 414, provides that the exclusive remedy for a breach of a service contract shall be an action in an appropriate court, unless the parties otherwise agree. Section 8(c)(2) of the 1984 Act, as amended by S. 414, would continue to require that all service contracts be filed with the Federal Maritime Commission. The purpose of this requirement is to assist the FMC in the enforcement of applicable provisions of United States shipping laws. However, other Federal agencies have expressed concerns over how they are to ensure ocean carrier compliance with United States cargo preference law requirements concerning shipping rates in an era of service contract rate confidentiality. The FMC is encouraged to work with affected Federal agencies to address this concern. S. 414 would add a new section 8(c)(4) to the 1984 Act that would allow a labor union with a collective bargaining agreement with an ocean common carrier to request information from the carrier with respect to cargo transported under a service contract entered into by that carrier to assist the union in enforcing its collective bargaining agreement and would require the carrier to provide that information. Section 8(c)(4) envisions the release of information not necessarily contained in the service contract. While the cargo transportation in question has to be made pursuant to a service contract, the carrier's response to an information request authorized by section 8(c)(4) may require the use of documents other than the service contract. The purpose of section 8(c)(4) is to provide the requesting labor union with information concerning certain land transportation services and other services for which an ocean common carrier subject to a collective bargaining agreement with that labor union may be responsible pursuant to a service contract. The specific language of section 8(c)(4)(A) describing the work covered by that disclosure requirement is intended to ensure that the ocean common carrier is not able to avoid compliance with the disclosure requirement by narrowly interpreting the statutory language of the work covered by the disclosure requirement. Section 8(c)(4), however, has no other purpose but to require disclosure of specified information and is not intended to serve any other purpose. The Senate understands that disputes have arisen, or may arise, concerning the assignment of certain off-dock and inter-dock transportation services at U.S. ports. We want to make it perfectly clear that nothing in this provision is intended to resolve or influence the outcome of any such dispute in any manner. The descriptions of work contained in section 8(c)(4)(A) should not be misinterpreted by a court or agency to imply a Congressional endorsement of any position in any such dispute. These issues are to be considered and determined by the appropriate agencies and courts taking into consideration existing provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, the Taft-Hartley Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, other provisions of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by S. 414, and other federal and state laws. Nothing in these disclosure provisions should affect or influence the outcome of the decisions of those courts or agencies, one way or the other. The substitute amendment to S. 414 contains several significant changes with respect to the anti-discrimination provisions contained in sections 10(b) and 10(c) of the Commerce Committee reported version of S. 414 affecting shippers' associations and ocean transportation intermediaries that need to be clarified. These revisions by the substitute amendment remove limitations placed on these sections in the Committee reported bill with respect to shippers' associations and ocean transportation intermediaries and thus supersede the Committee's Report of July 31, 1997 at pages 28 and 29. S. 414 is intended to promote a more competitive ocean transportation marketplace. In such a marketplace, it is anticipated that small to medium-sized shippers will increasingly rely upon non-profit shippers' associations and other forms of transportation intermediaries in order to obtain access to competitive economies of scale enjoyed by the largest shippers. Recognizing the important role that the small shipper plays in the competitiveness of the United States in the global economy, S. 414 contains several strong provisions to ensure that shippers who seek to combine their cargo with other shippers to obtain volume discounts in a shippers' association are not subjected to unreasonable discrimination due to their status as a shippers' association when entering into such service contracts. As amended by S. 414, new section 10(b)(10) of the 1984 Act would make it unlawful for a common carrier to ``unreasonably refuse to deal or negotiate.'' Previously, the prohibition against refusals to negotiate was limited to shippers' associations. The new section 10(b)(10) continues to provide a shippers' association or ocean transportation intermediary with protection against an unreasonable refusal to deal by one or more common carriers, and continues to provide the other protections included in section 10(b)(12) of the current law. New sections 10(c)(7) and 10(c)(8) of the 1984 Act, as amended by S. 414, would protect individual shippers' associations and ocean transportation intermediaries against the type of conduct specified in those paragraphs which is due to such person's status as a shippers' association or ocean transportation intermediary. The FMC should direct its enforcement efforts with respect to unreasonable discrimination due to a person's status as a shippers' association or ocean transportation intermediary for other than objective, relevant economic transportation factors on those groups of ocean common carriers that have the greatest potential to economically harm a shippers' association or an ocean transportation intermediary. S. 414 does not require identical treatment of shippers' associations and affords ocean common carriers greater flexibility than the current 1984 Act to differentiate their service contract terms and conditions. Section 10(c)(4) of the 1984 Act currently prohibits concerted action by ocean common carriers in negotiation of U.S. inland transportation rates and services with truck, rail, air, or other non-ocean carriers. Since the enactment of the 1984 Act, U.S. ocean common carriers have made very substantial investments in inland intermodal networks in reliance on the protections of section 10(c)(4). S. 414 would amend section 10(c)(4) to remove the current per se prohibition on joint negotiation of inland transportation agreements. S. 414 would allow joint negotiations and agreements with respect to the inland portion of these ocean common carriers' intermodal movements, but retain protections to ensure that U.S. inland intermodal carriers are not harmed. First, any such joint negotiations and agreements permitted under this section must be in conformity with the antitrust laws. There is no intention under this provision to permit or authorize any joint activity with respect to the negotiation of purchasing of U.S. inland services provided by non-ocean carriers that would not be permitted under the principles that apply to joint purchasing activities under the antitrust laws. Second, the joint negotiations and agreements permitted under this section must be consistent with the purposes of the Act, as amended by S. 414 and as determined by the Federal Maritime Commission. For example, the ability of joint purchasing arrangements to contribute to efficiencies in the U.S. transportation system in the ocean commerce of the United States that are then passed on to shippers is a factor that may be considered in determining whether an arrangement is consistent with the purposes of the 1984 Act. Another purpose of the 1984 Act is the development of an economically sound and efficient U.S.-flag liner fleet capable of meeting national security needs. As stated above, U.S.-flag liner operators have made very substantial investments in affiliated inland intermodal providers, and harm to these providers resulting from the use of market power by conferences or other groups of ocean common carriers would be inconsistent with the 1984 Act's purpose of maintaining a sound U.S.-flag liner fleet.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am going to take the 2 or 3 minutes we have before we begin the debate on the Gorton amendment just to familiarize my colleagues with the bill that is before us, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998, and give an overview of the bill. This is something that I think has been a long time coming. What we are trying to do is open our ports and give our carriers and our shippers more of an opportunity to compete with foreign competitors where they have been at a disadvantage in the past because our markets were so open that they were transparent in their contracts to the extent that many shippers would go to foreign carriers in order to escape the requirement to have so much openness and on the other hand carriers would be able to compete at a disadvantage to our shippers because they knew everything about a contract and they could undercut that contract. So it has not been a good situation. Particularly our ports that are near Canada or are near Mexico have felt a loss of business because of the competition from the foreign carriers. What we are trying to do is level the playing field for American shippers, American carriers, and try to help American ports get more of the business, which we think, of course, would create more jobs for our port cities. So what we tried to do was balance the interests. We want transparency. We want openness. But we also want to allow the privacy of contracting to the extent that shippers and carriers can make contracts which they ought to be able to do privately, and as long as everything is open in competition it should be an open marketplace. I would not say this is a perfect bill. Certainly nothing we ever pass is just the way we would pass it if we alone wrote it. But we are not alone. We have 100 Members. We have a Commerce Committee that debated this bill, that worked on it for a long time. In fact, we have been working on it for 2 years, and it has been a compromise bill. But I think everyone will be better off as a result of this effort. I appreciate the support of the Commerce Committee. It has been a major achievement for the Commerce Committee. I appreciate the work of Senator Lott, our majority leader, who is very interested in this matter. I appreciate the work of Senator Gorton and Senator Breaux, both of whom have worked very diligently to try to hone the balance in this bill. Senator Gorton has an amendment. There was one part of the bill that he felt needed changing. So he is going to debate that amendment. I think the bill should pass as it is because I think the balancing has been done. So with that, I will yield the floor. I know we have a unanimous consent agreement that at 9:40 we will begin the debate on the Gorton amendment. And Senator Breaux will be arguing on the other side for the committee. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Larry DiRita, my legislative director, and Jim Sartucci from the Commerce Committee professional staff, be allowed floor privileges during the duration of the debate on S. 414.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think Senator Gorton has made a very good statement. I think we will be able to work together for our common goal. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Washington has made a very eloquent statement, and I am very glad that we agree on 99 percent of this bill and that we agree that this is a very important improvement for the whole shipping and carrier industry which will promote more business for U.S. ports. I do not take issue with anything Senator Gorton has said, except to say that in the balancing of competing interests, it is very difficult to have acceptance by all. And I can truthfully say that no one who is affected in this shipping industry is completely happy with this bill-- no one--not the unions, not the shippers, not the carriers, and not the non-vessel-operating common carriers of which Senator Gorton spoke. But in the main, the balance is better for all of these than in the present law. This bill has some advantages above current law for these non-vessel- operating common carriers. They can take advantage of the tariff reforms. They will be able to privately publish tariffs, and they don't need to file them with the Federal Maritime Commission. These NVOs, as shippers, can have confidential contracts with carriers, helping them compete against each other. They will be able to benefit, of course, from the more competitive atmosphere among carriers when purchasing space, and they have the current protections against discrimination against them by cartels maintained in this bill. So while they are not completely happy with this bill--and I certainly understand their concerns--there are important pro- competitive reforms they will benefit from. I would point out that the other entities affected by this bill are also not completely happy with it. But they too, recognize it as a compromise that contains positive reforms. I think all would say that having this legislation does open competition, it does bring business to U.S. carriers, the competition will bring lower prices to shippers, and our ports will get the business. That is good for everyone above and beyond the law as it stands today. I hope, when we vote on Senator Gorton's amendment, people will understand this balancing, that they will opt in favor of the Hutchison amendment to S. 414 unamended by the Gorton amendment and then let us keep working on this issue, which I think certainly the non-vessel- operating common carriers are entitled to and which I pledge I will do and try to get a bill that is a balance, that creates more jobs and more business for America. That should be our goal, and I believe it is. Let us just get there. I thank the Chair. Now, according to the unanimous consent agreement, I will yield back the time from the majority side. The minority side has agreed to also yield back time. If Senator Gorton does not wish to have further debate, then I will yield the floor and the unanimous consent agreement is in effect. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, American ports and carriers and shippers are disadvantaged by current laws that require all contracts to be public. To avoid publication, U.S. ports are bypassed when possible and the U.S. carriers lose business. U.S. exporters, unlike their foreign competitors, must reveal their ocean transportation costs, permitting the foreign competition to undercut them. Recent economic problems in Asia will increase pressure in those countries to increase their exports. S. 414 will be even more important if our shippers meet the heightened competitive challenge. S. 414 attempts to level the playing field between U.S. companies which export and their foreign competitors. This bill will encourage greater competition among carriers. It will provide American exporters and importers with greater choice in obtaining ocean transportation services and promote more ocean shipping activity for our carriers and our ports. In providing our shippers with this important reform, we have still attempted to preserve antidiscrimination provisions in current law and the elements of our current ``transparent'' system that protect our ports, smaller shippers, and U.S. workers. This bill balances the need to have enough transparency to assure fair pricing with contract privacy. Ninety-five percent of U.S. foreign commerce is transported via ocean shipping. Half of this trade which is carried by container liner vessels with scheduled service is regulated under the Shipping Act of 1984 and would be affected by these reforms. This legislation represents an important opportunity to ease the hand of regulation on a significant sector of commerce. This bill represents the first major reform of this critical industry in a decade and the most significant change to the underlying statute since 1984. Its completion complements the free trade revolution that has occurred during this same period and will allow American businesses and consumers to take advantage of the global increase in trade, both imports and exports. Mr. President, I am proud to have worked on this bill with the distinguished Majority Leader Lott and colleagues from both sides of the aisle to advance this important legislation. I really appreciate the leadership of the ranking member of the full Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, as well as certainly the ranking member of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, Senator Inouye, and my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, and the chairman of the committee, Senator McCain. I would also like to acknowledge the concerns of my colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton. I am aware of the outstanding issue that he will soon address with his amendment. I understand the merits of his amendment. I have sympathy for it. However, I will have to vote against it and urge my colleagues to do likewise because its adoption at this time will jeopardize the progress of this bill. I would like to outline the key points of the legislation. Here are the highlights of the floor amendment that I have introduced. We provide shippers and common carriers greater choice and flexibility in entering into contractual relationships for ocean transportation and intermodal services. To this end, the most significant improvements are: No. 1, that we strengthen the right of individual members of ocean carrier groups to negotiate and enter into service contracts with one or more shippers, independent of the carrier group. This means that individual carriers will be better able to customize their services without the interference of the carrier conferences. No. 2, we clarify the rights of groups of ocean common carriers to jointly negotiate inland transportation rates and services consistent with antitrust statutes and FMC approval. This means that carriers will be able to incorporate electronic commerce, logistics and other services that add value to the customer's contract. No. 3, we continue to require a form of tariff publication. However, it is much more flexible than the current tariff filings. Tariffs become effective upon publication through a private system, such as on the carriers' World Wide Web pages, not a governmental publication. Also tariff changes do not require Government approval. This puts the maritime industry on a similar footing as other transportation industries which we have deregulated in recent years, providing carriers with greater flexibility. The measure protects U.S. exporters from disclosure to their foreign competitors of certain proprietary business information through their contractual relationships with common carriers by allowing confidentiality of certain service contract terms. As I have mentioned earlier, our competitors can and do contract ocean shipping transportation confidentially, and our shippers never know what their competitors are paying for transportation. However, U.S. shippers' ocean transportation costs are an open book, and foreign competitors use the information to undercut our exporters whenever possible. Our ports suffer, too. Shippers who conveniently can, will ship out of foreign ports in nearby Canada or Mexico to avoid this penalty. Our shippers say they want more flexibility in dealing with their ocean carriers and the ability to go outside the traditional tariff system and conference structure. We have provided this needed confidentiality, but balanced it with protections for ports and U.S. dockworkers who seek information on the movement of commodities to protect their competitive position. Additionally, this measure relaxes some of the restrictions on individual carriers relating to practices or preferences in dealing with exporters, but maintains them with regard to the concerted activity of two or more carriers. Finally, the reported bill would have combined the functions of the Federal Maritime Commission and the Service Transportation Board into a single agency. This floor amendment retains these separate agencies and functions in their current form. Thus, the overall thrust of this entire bill--with the amendment that I am offering--is to generate more competition for shippers of all sizes in the ocean transportation sector and to make this important transportation link to their overseas markets more affordable and sensitive to their individual needs. This is a bill that should help our ports get more business, which means more jobs in America. It should level the playing field for our U.S. carriers while protecting the rights of shippers and dock workers and other union personnel. It is very important that we have tried to balance this. Is the bill perfect? No. There are things I would like to have seen different. We have had to compromise to a degree. But I do think we have done a good job of working with all the interests here and allowing our carriers, shippers and ports to compete, which means jobs for Americans. That is the purpose of this bill. I believe we have done it in the best way we could, balancing all of the competing interests. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with and I be recognized to speak on the bill.