Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. I might say, just for further clarification, it would add to ``illegal'' the words ``and improper.'' The Glenn amendment of course has a number of descriptions. We are working on a discussion here of how that might be handled in a colloquy here today. But this would just add the words ``and improper'' at the appropriate places in the resolution.

Mr. LOTT. At this point it is just no further amendments in order to my amendment. We are discussing the possibility of an agreement that would not provide for additional amendments, but we have not reached a final agreement on that at this point. So we would have to just talk that through with you and other Senators and make sure everybody understands and agrees before we enter that next request. But it is not applicable here.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Glenn amendment be laid aside in order for me to offer an amendment, and no further amendments be in order prior to the vote on or in relation to my amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have a unanimous consent process that we will go through here that would allow for the withdrawal of the pending second-degree amendment and the offering of a new amendment. We are very close to an agreement on not only this procedure, but a number of other aspects of how we will deal with this pending resolution this afternoon. We would like to get this consent agreed to, and then we will take a few minutes more to make sure everybody understands exactly what we are proposing to agree to, and we will come back and go through that process. It could lead to our having perhaps just one more recorded vote and final passage. But we want to make sure everybody understands and is comfortable with what we are doing to the maximum degree possible. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, notwithstanding the consent agreement, that it be in order for me to withdraw amendment No. 22 in order to offer a separate amendment, and the amendment be in order notwithstanding the fact that it hits the resolution in more than one place.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, with that, I send a modification to the amendment to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we will be working with the Democratic leadership to get a time agreement on the vote that will occur at 2:15, I presume, on this amendment. But we want to work through that and make sure we understand exactly what the voting sequence will be. The purpose of this amendment is to reconfirm and beef up our commitment to the public and to our colleagues here in the Senate to insure that funds are authorized by this section for the sole purpose of conducting an investigation of illegal activities in connection with the 1996 Federal election campaigns. It is also to make sure that the Rules Committee has the full authority, with the support of the Senate, to get into matters relating to Federal elections generally, including the President, the Vice President and Members of Congress, and corrupt practices. The Governmental Affairs Committee, under this amendment, shall refer to the Committee on Rules and Administration any evidence of activities in connection with the 1996 Federal election campaigns which activities are not illegal but which require investigation of a committee of the Senate revealed pursuant to the investigation authorized under subsection (b). The Rules Committee is going to be an active committee. The Rules Committee will look into any allegations of problems with existing campaign laws or campaign finance laws. They will have hearings, and they have the jurisdiction and the authority to move legislatively. The Governmental Affairs Committee has a budget of $4.53 million for its investigation, and it has very broad authority to conduct hearings on the 1996 Federal election campaigns. But it is the Rules Committee that has the jurisdiction to act legislatively on campaign reform. So I emphasize, again, as I did earlier, it is our intent for the Rules Committee to act in this area. We have provided additional funding and, once again, rather than getting into a great big argument about scope, it is clear what should happen here. First of all, there are lots of allegations of illegal activities, foreign contributions that may have come into campaigns--Presidential or congressional--the indications that maybe even a foreign government may have had an organized plan to be involved in campaigns. We know if these activities occurred, they would be illegal, but we don't know what happened. We need a process to look into these things. We need a focused investigation into these allegations. Yet, there are those who say we need to broaden the scope widely, narrow the money, and limit the time. It is a prescription for not getting the job done. This investigation, with the additional authority that is being provided of $4.53 million, is for illegal activities, and they are rampant in this city. As I said earlier, the city seems to be burning while we are fiddling around with the process. The Rules Committee has jurisdiction that it will take advantage of. The Governmental Affairs Committee is getting additional authority to look into illegal activities. Ethics has its responsibilities. There is attempt to cover up or avoid our responsibilities. We are going to do that. I think this amendment that we have offered here further clarifies our intent to look into illegal activities by the special committee investigation and then to have the Rules Committee look into corrupt practices that may be involved that may not be necessarily illegal but may need to be looked at for the possibility of changing the current practices. Amendment No. 22, As Modified

Mr. LOTT. We added only one word, I say to the distinguished ranking member. In section C ``Referral to Committee on Rules and Administration,'' we add the word ``under rule 25.'' We only added one word to make it grammatically correct--``under rule 25.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess until 4:45 p.m. today.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now go into recess for 5 minutes for the purpose of receiving the President of Egypt, President Mubarak. [Applause.]

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment No. 23 just agreed to be modified so that the word ``and'' is replaced with the word ``or'' each time it appears.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 23, as Modified

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT. I reserve the right to object, Mr. President. I would like, if I could, to ask the ranking member to defer in that request for a moment and allow us to have a chance to discuss it with him and with the Democratic leader. I think that is probably what we want to do, but I just want to make sure everybody is in tune with what we are doing here.

Mr. LOTT. It is our intent, and I believe the minority leader has no objection--I have not discussed that with him--to have our first votes at 2:15 after the conference and caucus.

Mr. LOTT. Today, the Senate will resume consideration of Senator Glenn's amendment to Senate Resolution 39, the Governmental Affairs funding resolution reported by the Rules Committee. I hope the Senate will continue and hopefully complete debate on the Glenn amendment so that we may vote sometime this afternoon on or in relation to the amendment. Of course, I want to notify the Senate that we, as always is the case, reserve our right to offer second-degree amendments to amendments that may be offered. I understand that additional amendments may be offered to Senate Resolution 39, and I presume that there will be a substitute that will be included among those to replace the resolution that is before us. I am sure we will have full debate on all the amendments that may be offered as well as a possible substitute and the underlying funding resolution. Therefore, Senators can expect rollcall votes throughout the day. I hope we will be able to conclude action on this measure today or early tomorrow. I talked with the Democratic leader last night. He indicated that he hoped that would be possible. And when we do finish this, then there are some nominations we hope to take up and get a vote on, including the nomination of Federico Pena to be Secretary of Energy. We would do that hopefully in the morning or tomorrow afternoon. After that, after consultation with the Democratic leadership, we would expect to go to the Hollings constitutional amendment concerning free speech. So that could take the balance of the week, maybe even going over into Friday with some debate, with votes likely occurring-- and, again, we will have to work this out--maybe on final passage late Monday afternoon. But we will notify Senators as we go along exactly when the votes will occur on Wednesday and Thursday and if any on Friday. We will recess between the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly policy conference and the caucus to meet. I also remind our colleagues that this week we may have to go late into the night one night, which will probably be Thursday night, but we will work with the leadership again and notify the Members exactly what they can expect in that regard. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I thank our colleagues for the debate yesterday. I thought it went well. I want to commend and congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee. I think he is being very positive in his remarks. He is trying to get this to a conclusion, and I think we need to do that. I thank the ranking member from Ohio for the way he has handled himself. There are big problems in this city; it is sort of like the city is burning, and we do not want to appear to be fiddling any longer with getting a resolution that would allow this committee to go forward and do its work with a reasonable amount of money and a reasonable amount of time and with the emphasis on illegal activities as it might apply to the Presidential candidates or Members of Congress. I want to emphasize again that anything that might come out with regard to Senators doing something inappropriate or unethical, that, as has always been the case, would go to the Ethics Committee under the resolution that we are considering. Also, I want to assure my colleagues that it is my intent that we look into the question of campaign reform. The Rules Committee has the authority, has the jurisdiction and under this resolution has additional money, $450,000 additional funds, to look into how the campaigns were conducted last year, how legal activities were handled and whether or not changes need to be made. It is my intent in due time after proper hearings and after a lot of consultation that we will take up this issue. The inference continues to be that our goal is just to block it. We do not intend to set a magic date, whether that date is May 1, April 15, or Labor Day, for that matter. That may be a good time to set up a magic date. But we should not get locked in on dates certain. Let us just do our job. That is what I hope the Senate will do on this resolution. That is what we intend to do in the committee of the distinguished chairman from Virginia, to have hearings on campaign finance reform and look at all these questions in regard to how soft money is used, independent expenditures, and how labor union dues are used without labor union members' permission. What is the situation with illegal foreign contributions? Do we, in fact, have in this case, as has been suggested, the possibility of even espionage? This is serious. What we need is for a committee of credibility and jurisdiction to get started with their work, and I hope that we can do that with as little rancor today as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Glenn amendment No. 21 be withdrawn, and the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to.

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, at the beginning, I thank all concerned for the efforts that have been put into coming to this agreement, especially the Democratic leader. There has been a lot of discussion involving Senators on both sides of the aisle and all the different committees involved. I think this is the right thing to do and we can move on, then, with the proper investigation, in a bipartisan way. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation that will update, revise and improve upon the Shipping Act of 1984. This legislation is a continuation and extension of work initiated in the last Congress by Representative Bud Shuster, my friend in the House of Representatives and Senator Larry Pressler, then chairman of the Senate's Commerce Committee. Under the leadership of Senator Pressler, the proposal from the House of Representatives was examined through an initial hearing, and it was modified to address the concerns expressed by many in the industry. Only after a critical review of the key issues and concerns was a revised bipartisan amendment to the Senate bill introduced. Unfortunately, time ran out in the 104th Congress and the Senate Commerce Committee could not hold another hearing on the proposal. Still, changes continued to be incorporated into a single new version of the amendment, and in the last week of the 104th Congress the amendment was placed in the Congressional Record. My legislative plan was simple and direct--introduce a bill and then hold a hearing so that public input would have a genuine opportunity to affect the legislative process. This remains my plan, and that is why I used my public ending point in the 104th Congress as my new beginning point in the 105th Congress. As the process began again in this Congress, we again sought input from the maritime world as we prepared this important legislation for reintroduction. In the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives was the first to act. In the 105th Congress, the Senate will be the first to act. Mr. President, this explanation of the legislative journey was necessary so that my colleagues will have an appreciation of the outreach that was pursued by the Senate in its drafting process regarding this shipping reform. Let me say that I grew up in an active port community. In fact, I still live in that port city of Pascagoula. There is nothing in our legislative proposal that is intended to harm the onshore maritime community. Believe me, I know first hand the challenges faced by ports because I have lived with them. I still remember the committee hearing on the shipping act last year where I had to give lessons in how to pronounce ``Pascagoula.'' On that day, I wanted to make sure people who develop and comment on maritime policy know and remember Pascagoula. I would like to add one more comment about the development of this legislation before I say a few words on what the bill will accomplish. The U.S. Coast Guard detailed an officer to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to assist the committee's members and staff on both sides of the isle on issues affecting the Coast Guard and the maritime world. Last year and part of this year we have had the able assistance of Lt. Comdr. Jim Sartucci. He was instrumental in collecting comments and in drafting provisions of this proposal in both the 104th and now the 105th Congress. I have received many unsolicited compliments about Jim's willingness to listen and merge in a meaningful way, individual proposals from all segments of the maritime world. Everyone that I have encountered has told me that Jim was both professional and fair as we worked through the process. Mr. President, Lieutenant Commander Sartucci has clearly reflected great credit upon the Coast Guard, the Commerce Committee, and on this legislative proposal. Mr. President, we now know how we got to this point in the legislative process. There are still two topics that need to be addressed today. First, why do we need shipping reform and second, how does the bill accomplish that reform? In just a few minutes, let me explain why we need shipping reform. Last year's successful maritime reform effort addressed the critical requirement of guaranteeing an American fleet and American crews in the context of necessary sealift capabilities for deploying and supporting our military forces overseas. Our efforts in shipping reform this year focus on the needs of America's ports and Americans who work dockside. Both big and little ports. were considered as part of the process. Ports with and without cranes. Mr. President, last year, I spoke at length with the Honorable Helen Delich Bentley, the former Maryland Congresswoman. She has been an effective defender of ports and maritime labor for years. She is a true champion, and I value her advice. I made a commitment to Helen then and I believe it has been honored this year with the legislative language. The legislation will provide adequate protection for small ports and small shippers. Also, the legislation will ensure that the collective power of some industry elements will not be allowed to abuse other segments of the industry. Having said this, it is time to deregulate the ocean shipping industry and to sunset the FMC. The path was started by President Reagan back in 1984. Senator Slade Gorton, my colleague and friend, was the principal author of this initial step and with his help we took the next step when we put together the proposal in the 104th Congress. I am very pleased that the author of the original act that we are amending has agreed to cosponsor this bill. Mr. President, this year Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison will be leading the charge to complete this second part of maritime reform. She has a clear understanding of what is necessary to strike the delicate balance to achieve deregulation without permitting marketplace abuses. She will do an excellent job in chairing the hearing and finalizing the legislative language for the full Senate. Let me be very clear; this proposal only deals with liner shipping, basically container ship, legislation--not bulk cargo shipping, which represents the other half of U.S. ocean borne trade. Do not let the opponents of reform confuse the issue. The already deregulated world of bulk cargo shipping is not being disturbed. I must also be candid. The challenge is to balance ocean common carrier antitrust issues and large ocean carrier and shipper desires for more private business relationships with meaningful oversight to produce a fair, yet competitive playing field. I believe this legislation strikes the right balance. I must also say that at the Commerce Committee hearing back in 1995, both Senator Breaux and I challenged the witnesses to work with us to resolve the concerns we were hearing from our constituents. The witnesses and many others did just that. They showed up and participated in extensive, good faith negotiations. This bill is not antilabor. The shoreside and seafaring unions continue to work with us in a constructive manner. Their goal and ours is to put in place an ocean shipping framework that eliminates inefficient and burdensome regulations, promotes U.S. trade, and in so doing, preserves and creates American jobs. This bill is not about dealing with just a couple of players in the maritime community. Many members of the industry were consulted. We provided a genuine opportunity to participate in dialog as we drafted this bill. Introduction should not stop the consensus seeking process. And, I hope the discussion will continue with Senator Hutchison as she prepares for the upcoming hearing and even following the hearing. Let me now explain how this legislation accomplishes our goals to reform this critical industry. This legislation will permit confidential contracting between individual ocean common carriers and shippers, but will continue current public filing requirements for joint ocean common carrier contracts. This action balances the desire to make the U.S. ocean liner contracting process consistent with international ocean shipping practices and other U.S. transportation modes with the unique application of ocean common carrier antitrust immunity in the ocean liner shipping industry. At recent meetings held by the Maritime Administration on the diversion of cargo from U.S. ports, the current U.S. ocean liner shipping system was identified as a contributor to this problem. This legislation will help eliminate this U.S. port handicap. This legislation will retain common carrier tariff enforcement, but would eliminate the requirement to file tariffs with the Government. Common carriers would be able to take advantage of available modern technology by using a World Wide Web home page to satisfy the tariff publication requirement. This just makes common sense and reduces the cost of doing business while maintaining protections for small shippers. This legislation will streamline and reform the Federal Maritime Commission [FMC], and establish a responsible time line to downsize the FMC in accordance with its new mission and merge it with the Surface Transportation Board. America will then have a single, centralized, independent, Federal agency where the distinct regulatory systems for each mode of transportation are monitored and enforced in a coherent manner. This legislation does much to ensure that America's presence in the ocean shipping business is not subjected to unfair foreign rules or practices. The recent FMC enforcement actions taken against unfair port practices in Japan is an illustration of an essential FMC mission that is not performed by other Federal agencies. This mission will continue, and I will support it wholeheartedly. Let me be clear. This bill will significantly change the regulations governing ocean transportation in the foreign commerce of the United States while providing Government efficiencies and genuine reforms to protect American interests. The changes will strengthen ocean common carriers' ability to competitively price their services, in turn, making American shippers more competitive. Mr. President, the world's transportation community is now, and has been for some time, a seamless intermodal world. With this bill our Federal Government will finally be able to think and act in an intermodal manner. The American people get less Federal micro- management of our ocean shipping industry while receiving the protection of a government agency focused on preserving fair competition. An economically efficient, market oriented shipping industry provides America an advantage in the global marketplace. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for their attention, and I hope they will give serious consideration to becoming a cosponsor to this necessary bipartisan legislative reform. Remember this is not just a port State matter; it is also an exporting State concern.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Today, under a previous order, a number of Senators are scheduled to speak in morning business. At 3 p.m., following the allotted morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of Senate Resolution 39, the Governmental Affairs Committee funding resolution, which was reported out of the Rules Committee last Thursday. As I announced on Thursday, there will be no rollcall votes today during our session, and any votes ordered today will occur on Tuesday, either early in the morning or, more than likely, after the party conference and caucus lunches. I will be continuing discussions with the Democratic leader in the hope of reaching an agreement on the resolution which would allow us to complete action early this week. In addition, it is possible the Senate will consider the Pena nomination this week. I will notify Senators as to when that nomination is scheduled and when a vote will occur. But I presume that vote would probably not occur before late Wednesday, or Thursday more than likely. Also, there is a likelihood this week that the Senate will consider the Hollings resolution relating to a constitutional amendment regarding campaign reform. I thank all Senators for their attention. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation that will update, revise and improve upon the Shipping Act of 1984. This legislation is a continuation and extension of work initiated in the last Congress by Representative Bud Shuster, my friend in the House of Representatives and Senator Larry Pressler, then chairman of the Senate's Commerce Committee. Under the leadership of Senator Pressler, the proposal from the House of Representatives was examined through an initial hearing, and it was modified to address the concerns expressed by many in the industry. Only after a critical review of the key issues and concerns was a revised bipartisan amendment to the Senate bill introduced. Unfortunately, time ran out in the 104th Congress and the Senate Commerce Committee could not hold another hearing on the proposal. Still, changes continued to be incorporated into a single new version of the amendment, and in the last week of the 104th Congress the amendment was placed in the Congressional Record. My legislative plan was simple and direct--introduce a bill and then hold a hearing so that public input would have a genuine opportunity to affect the legislative process. This remains my plan, and that is why I used my public ending point in the 104th Congress as my new beginning point in the 105th Congress. As the process began again in this Congress, we again sought input from the maritime world as we prepared this important legislation for reintroduction. In the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives was the first to act. In the 105th Congress, the Senate will be the first to act. Mr. President, this explanation of the legislative journey was necessary so that my colleagues will have an appreciation of the outreach that was pursued by the Senate in its drafting process regarding this shipping reform. Let me say that I grew up in an active port community. In fact, I still live in that port city of Pascagoula. There is nothing in our legislative proposal that is intended to harm the onshore maritime community. Believe me, I know first hand the challenges faced by ports because I have lived with them. I still remember the committee hearing on the shipping act last year where I had to give lessons in how to pronounce ``Pascagoula.'' On that day, I wanted to make sure people who develop and comment on maritime policy know and remember Pascagoula. I would like to add one more comment about the development of this legislation before I say a few words on what the bill will accomplish. The U.S. Coast Guard detailed an officer to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to assist the committee's members and staff on both sides of the isle on issues affecting the Coast Guard and the maritime world. Last year and part of this year we have had the able assistance of Lt. Comdr. Jim Sartucci. He was instrumental in collecting comments and in drafting provisions of this proposal in both the 104th and now the 105th Congress. I have received many unsolicited compliments about Jim's willingness to listen and merge in a meaningful way, individual proposals from all segments of the maritime world. Everyone that I have encountered has told me that Jim was both professional and fair as we worked through the process. Mr. President, Lieutenant Commander Sartucci has clearly reflected great credit upon the Coast Guard, the Commerce Committee, and on this legislative proposal. Mr. President, we now know how we got to this point in the legislative process. There are still two topics that need to be addressed today. First, why do we need shipping reform and second, how does the bill accomplish that reform? In just a few minutes, let me explain why we need shipping reform. Last year's successful maritime reform effort addressed the critical requirement of guaranteeing an American fleet and American crews in the context of necessary sealift capabilities for deploying and supporting our military forces overseas. Our efforts in shipping reform this year focus on the needs of America's ports and Americans who work dockside. Both big and little ports. were considered as part of the process. Ports with and without cranes. Mr. President, last year, I spoke at length with the Honorable Helen Delich Bentley, the former Maryland Congresswoman. She has been an effective defender of ports and maritime labor for years. She is a true champion, and I value her advice. I made a commitment to Helen then and I believe it has been honored this year with the legislative language. The legislation will provide adequate protection for small ports and small shippers. Also, the legislation will ensure that the collective power of some industry elements will not be allowed to abuse other segments of the industry. Having said this, it is time to deregulate the ocean shipping industry and to sunset the FMC. The path was started by President Reagan back in 1984. Senator Slade Gorton, my colleague and friend, was the principal author of this initial step and with his help we took the next step when we put together the proposal in the 104th Congress. I am very pleased that the author of the original act that we are amending has agreed to cosponsor this bill. Mr. President, this year Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison will be leading the charge to complete this second part of maritime reform. She has a clear understanding of what is necessary to strike the delicate balance to achieve deregulation without permitting marketplace abuses. She will do an excellent job in chairing the hearing and finalizing the legislative language for the full Senate. Let me be very clear; this proposal only deals with liner shipping, basically container ship, legislation--not bulk cargo shipping, which represents the other half of U.S. ocean borne trade. Do not let the opponents of reform confuse the issue. The already deregulated world of bulk cargo shipping is not being disturbed. I must also be candid. The challenge is to balance ocean common carrier antitrust issues and large ocean carrier and shipper desires for more private business relationships with meaningful oversight to produce a fair, yet competitive playing field. I believe this legislation strikes the right balance. I must also say that at the Commerce Committee hearing back in 1995, both Senator Breaux and I challenged the witnesses to work with us to resolve the concerns we were hearing from our constituents. The witnesses and many others did just that. They showed up and participated in extensive, good faith negotiations. This bill is not antilabor. The shoreside and seafaring unions continue to work with us in a constructive manner. Their goal and ours is to put in place an ocean shipping framework that eliminates inefficient and burdensome regulations, promotes U.S. trade, and in so doing, preserves and creates American jobs. This bill is not about dealing with just a couple of players in the maritime community. Many members of the industry were consulted. We provided a genuine opportunity to participate in dialog as we drafted this bill. Introduction should not stop the consensus seeking process. And, I hope the discussion will continue with Senator Hutchison as she prepares for the upcoming hearing and even following the hearing. Let me now explain how this legislation accomplishes our goals to reform this critical industry. This legislation will permit confidential contracting between individual ocean common carriers and shippers, but will continue current public filing requirements for joint ocean common carrier contracts. This action balances the desire to make the U.S. ocean liner contracting process consistent with international ocean shipping practices and other U.S. transportation modes with the unique application of ocean common carrier antitrust immunity in the ocean liner shipping industry. At recent meetings held by the Maritime Administration on the diversion of cargo from U.S. ports, the current U.S. ocean liner shipping system was identified as a contributor to this problem. This legislation will help eliminate this U.S. port handicap. This legislation will retain common carrier tariff enforcement, but would eliminate the requirement to file tariffs with the Government. Common carriers would be able to take advantage of available modern technology by using a World Wide Web home page to satisfy the tariff publication requirement. This just makes common sense and reduces the cost of doing business while maintaining protections for small shippers. This legislation will streamline and reform the Federal Maritime Commission [FMC], and establish a responsible time line to downsize the FMC in accordance with its new mission and merge it with the Surface Transportation Board. America will then have a single, centralized, independent, Federal agency where the distinct regulatory systems for each mode of transportation are monitored and enforced in a coherent manner. This legislation does much to ensure that America's presence in the ocean shipping business is not subjected to unfair foreign rules or practices. The recent FMC enforcement actions taken against unfair port practices in Japan is an illustration of an essential FMC mission that is not performed by other Federal agencies. This mission will continue, and I will support it wholeheartedly. Let me be clear. This bill will significantly change the regulations governing ocean transportation in the foreign commerce of the United States while providing Government efficiencies and genuine reforms to protect American interests. The changes will strengthen ocean common carriers' ability to competitively price their services, in turn, making American shippers more competitive. Mr. President, the world's transportation community is now, and has been for some time, a seamless intermodal world. With this bill our Federal Government will finally be able to think and act in an intermodal manner. The American people get less Federal micro- management of our ocean shipping industry while receiving the protection of a government agency focused on preserving fair competition. An economically efficient, market oriented shipping industry provides America an advantage in the global marketplace. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for their attention, and I hope they will give serious consideration to becoming a cosponsor to this necessary bipartisan legislative reform. Remember this is not just a port State matter; it is also an exporting State concern.