<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">THE MOMENT SHOULD BE SAVORED. The most comprehensive tax restructuring since the income tax was inst</div>

THE MOMENT SHOULD BE SAVORED. The most comprehensive tax restructuring since the income tax was inst

<div class="phx-topic">THE MOMENT SHOULD BE SAVORED. The most comprehensive tax restructuring since the income tax was instituted 73 years ago (if you believe the Wall Street Journal) or since World War II (if you believe The New York Times) was approved by House and Senate conferees late Saturday night.But it took six years, if you deal in the short term, and many more than that if you never believed in a federal income tax in the first place. It was on Aug. 5, 1982, that Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., introduced their tax overhaul plan.As you can see in The Journal of Commerce on page 3A, the effect of the new tax approach on the businesses we concentrate on - transportation, insurance, trade, energy, petrochemicals, financial services and commodities - will not be as positive as for the more consumer-oriented industries.Yes, this bill will make income tax law simpler and do away with loopholes. But most of those loopholes helped reduce taxes for industry and especially those industries The Journal of Commerce reports on.The point is we cannot afford to wait another six years if this tax structuring proves to be more detrimental to these essential industries of the United States than expected. This is especially true given the $170 billion trade deficit the country should rack up in 1986 and the federal budget deficit that continues to exceed all expectations.One suspects more tax revenue is going to be needed. If so, action should be taken quickly. One suspects that greater incentives to encourage industries to invest in new plants and equipment also will be needed. Again close scrutiny of the effects of the new tax code is needed and quick action is required from Congress to make the tax code not only simpler but better.</div>

THE MOMENT SHOULD BE SAVORED. The most comprehensive tax restructuring since the income tax was instituted 73 years ago (if you believe the Wall Street Journal) or since World War II (if you believe The New York Times) was approved by House and Senate conferees late Saturday night. But it took six years, if you deal in the short term, and many more than that if you never believed in a federal income tax in the first place. It was on Aug. 5, 1982, that Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., introduced their tax overhaul plan.As you can see in The Journal of Commerce on page 3A, the effect of the new tax approach on the businesses we concentrate on - transportation, insurance, trade, energy, petrochemicals, financial services and commodities - will not be as positive as for the more consumer-oriented industries. Yes, this bill will make income tax law simpler and do away with loopholes. But most of those loopholes helped reduce taxes for industry and especially those industries The Journal of Commerce reports on. The point is we cannot afford to wait another six years if this tax structuring proves to be more detrimental to these essential industries of the United States than expected. This is especially true given the $170 billion trade deficit the country should rack up in 1986 and the federal budget deficit that continues to exceed all expectations. One suspects more tax revenue is going to be needed. If so, action should be taken quickly. One suspects that greater incentives to encourage industries to invest in new plants and equipment also will be needed. Again close scrutiny of the effects of the new tax code is needed and quick action is required from Congress to make the tax code not only simpler but better.

BEWARE OF TAX ELAN

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The circumstances surrounding the 1972 sale of U.S. wheat to the Soviets, the first such sale since </div>

The circumstances surrounding the 1972 sale of U.S. wheat to the Soviets, the first such sale since

<div class="phx-topic">The circumstances surrounding the 1972 sale of U.S. wheat to the Soviets, the first such sale since 1963, were quite different from those surrounding the recent administration decision to expand the Export Enhancement Program to include limited offers to subsidize Soviet purchases.The current decision was indeed a political one, but it deals only indirectly with the fall elections. It was reported in Washington to have been instituted in an effort to buy votes to defeat the then highly possible House override of the president's veto of a textile bill. Just as the Export Enhancement Program, which subsidizes exports to selected countries, was itself instituted to buy votes for a tax measure, neither of them was instituted directly for agriculture.It is incorrect, at least as yet, even to speak of subsidized sales to the Soviets, for there have as yet been no sales. The offer that was made includes an insufficient subsidy amount to make U.S. wheat competitive with other world wheat, and the Soviets are reported to have turned up their noses at it. The Soviets have, furthermore, issued a new list of shipping terms that are considered by the exporters to be at the very least extremely difficult if not impossible for the United States to live with. It is doubtful that any U.S. exporter would be able to offer any wheat - or other grains, for that matter - unless these terms can be modified.The concept of a subsidy is, furthermore, a cloudy issue and one that is very little understood. Is it a subsidy when world prices are lower than the domestic prices, and the United States maintains the domestic price but makes its export prices compatible with the world wheat prices by paying the difference from the Treasury? And, who is actually paid the subsidy if it is not the farmer who continues to receive the domestic price when his grain is sold abroad at a lower price? The customer pays a price for the grain that is the same as the price he would pay for wheat from any other country in the world. And in the current instance, there are many who not only have grains available but are anxiously attempting to sell it to the Soviet Union.The U.S. government's Export Enhancement Program also has had mostly unfortunate results. It has offended certain buyers of U.S. grain for whom the subsidy does not apply. These customers are, in turn, buying from the U.S. competitors at the lower prices, which they then bid to undercut the prices quoted under the Export Enhancement Program.It has been suggested that the Soviets have reneged on their agreement to buy wheat from the United States. This agreement calls for the Soviets to buy specific quantities at world prices. The Soviets maintain that the United States has not been offering them the lower world prices but a higher U.S. price.One of the most significant differences today as compared with early 1972 is that the United States is no longer in control of the agricultural market. Back in 1972, the United States had virtually the only stocks left in the world. Other countries' stocks were reduced to almost nothing. The United States stocks were large and could easily have accommodated even large purchases had the Soviets bought more than the 400 million bushels. U.S. prices did not rise appreciably until well after the Soviets had finished buying, and they rose then on the sharply increased buying from other U.S. customers. Japan, for example, increased its buying from the United States by more than 100 percent that year, and other countries all rushed here to buygrains. The big mistake the United States made was in the large and very expensive acreage reduction program it undertook for the 1972 crop. It was farmers who had pressured the U.S. Department of Agriculture to do this. And, subsequently, it was a farmers' organization that then criticized the administration for having exercised poor judgment in enacting the acreage reduction program.Today the United States has lost control. Other nations have expanded their farm production and have surpluses that they offer at lower prices than ours. The world's competition has been so fierce that wheat prices have been quoted as much as $40.00 a ton under U.S. prices.The United States can no longer force an issue in the world grain trade. But this is not apparent from the U.S. attitude toward the world markets. The problem stems from the U.S. pride in its agriculture. The incorrect understanding that "we feed the world. That the world cannot eat without us. The arrogance here that by withholding food shipments we can make other nations conform to the United States' wishes. That might have been the case in the past. But it is not true today. Even the balance of U.S. trade in agriculture is now deficit, whereas in the past agriculture was one of the most important earners of foreign exchange for the United States.Problems began for the United States when it began export embargoes principally against the Soviet Union, although the first one in 1973 was practiced against all nations. Following that, there were the embargoes of 1974 and 1975. Finally after the 1975 embargo, the United States entered into a long-term agreement with the Soviet Union.U.S. production continued to increase and so did our trade in grain with the Soviets. This reached its peak in 1980, when the infamous embargo in which the United States in one fell swoop decided it would not permit the export of about 17 million tons of grain already on order from the Soviets.The U.S. grain industry - and, indeed, world agriculture - has not yet recovered from that blow. It took the other nations one year to increase their production to cover the quantities the Soviets were then buying from them plus sales to their "traditional" customers. The United States finds that it has since that time been left out in the cold more and more, chiefly because of the restrictive practices of its own government. When a nation declines to sell food to another nation that needs it, that nation and the other nations immediately increase their production to make up the shortfall. This is what has happened in the world, and it is why the world is awash in grains.Joseph Halow is executive director North American Export Grain Association, Washington, D.C.</div>

The circumstances surrounding the 1972 sale of U.S. wheat to the Soviets, the first such sale since 1963, were quite different from those surrounding the recent administration decision to expand the Export Enhancement Program to include limited offers to subsidize Soviet purchases. The current decision was indeed a political one, but it deals only indirectly with the fall elections. It was reported in Washington to have been instituted in an effort to buy votes to defeat the then highly possible House override of the president's veto of a textile bill. Just as the Export Enhancement Program, which subsidizes exports to selected countries, was itself instituted to buy votes for a tax measure, neither of them was instituted directly for agriculture.It is incorrect, at least as yet, even to speak of subsidized sales to the Soviets, for there have as yet been no sales. The offer that was made includes an insufficient subsidy amount to make U.S. wheat competitive with other world wheat, and the Soviets are reported to have turned up their noses at it. The Soviets have, furthermore, issued a new list of shipping terms that are considered by the exporters to be at the very least extremely difficult if not impossible for the United States to live with. It is doubtful that any U.S. exporter would be able to offer any wheat - or other grains, for that matter - unless these terms can be modified. The concept of a subsidy is, furthermore, a cloudy issue and one that is very little understood. Is it a subsidy when world prices are lower than the domestic prices, and the United States maintains the domestic price but makes its export prices compatible with the world wheat prices by paying the difference from the Treasury? And, who is actually paid the subsidy if it is not the farmer who continues to receive the domestic price when his grain is sold abroad at a lower price? The customer pays a price for the grain that is the same as the price he would pay for wheat from any other country in the world. And in the current instance, there are many who not only have grains available but are anxiously attempting to sell it to the Soviet Union. The U.S. government's Export Enhancement Program also has had mostly unfortunate results. It has offended certain buyers of U.S. grain for whom the subsidy does not apply. These customers are, in turn, buying from the U.S. competitors at the lower prices, which they then bid to undercut the prices quoted under the Export Enhancement Program. It has been suggested that the Soviets have reneged on their agreement to buy wheat from the United States. This agreement calls for the Soviets to buy specific quantities at world prices. The Soviets maintain that the United States has not been offering them the lower world prices but a higher U.S. price. One of the most significant differences today as compared with early 1972 is that the United States is no longer in control of the agricultural market. Back in 1972, the United States had virtually the only stocks left in the world. Other countries' stocks were reduced to almost nothing. The United States stocks were large and could easily have accommodated even large purchases had the Soviets bought more than the 400 million bushels. U.S. prices did not rise appreciably until well after the Soviets had finished buying, and they rose then on the sharply increased buying from other U.S. customers. Japan, for example, increased its buying from the United States by more than 100 percent that year, and other countries all rushed here to buy grains. The big mistake the United States made was in the large and very expensive acreage reduction program it undertook for the 1972 crop. It was farmers who had pressured the U.S. Department of Agriculture to do this. And, subsequently, it was a farmers' organization that then criticized the administration for having exercised poor judgment in enacting the acreage reduction program. Today the United States has lost control. Other nations have expanded their farm production and have surpluses that they offer at lower prices than ours. The world's competition has been so fierce that wheat prices have been quoted as much as $40.00 a ton under U.S. prices. The United States can no longer force an issue in the world grain trade. But this is not apparent from the U.S. attitude toward the world markets. The problem stems from the U.S. pride in its agriculture. The incorrect understanding that "we feed the world. That the world cannot eat without us. The arrogance here that by withholding food shipments we can make other nations conform to the United States' wishes. That might have been the case in the past. But it is not true today. Even the balance of U.S. trade in agriculture is now deficit, whereas in the past agriculture was one of the most important earners of foreign exchange for the United States. Problems began for the United States when it began export embargoes principally against the Soviet Union, although the first one in 1973 was practiced against all nations. Following that, there were the embargoes of 1974 and 1975. Finally after the 1975 embargo, the United States entered into a long-term agreement with the Soviet Union. U.S. production continued to increase and so did our trade in grain with the Soviets. This reached its peak in 1980, when the infamous embargo in which the United States in one fell swoop decided it would not permit the export of about 17 million tons of grain already on order from the Soviets. The U.S. grain industry - and, indeed, world agriculture - has not yet recovered from that blow. It took the other nations one year to increase their production to cover the quantities the Soviets were then buying from them plus sales to their "traditional" customers. The United States finds that it has since that time been left out in the cold more and more, chiefly because of the restrictive practices of its own government. When a nation declines to sell food to another nation that needs it, that nation and the other nations immediately increase their production to make up the shortfall. This is what has happened in the world, and it is why the world is awash in grains. Joseph Halow is executive director North American Export Grain Association, Washington, D.C.

GRAIN EMBARGOES HAUNTING US

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Smart people do stupid things, especially when it comes to managing money. The former chairm</div>

Smart people do stupid things, especially when it comes to managing money. The former chairm

<div class="phx-topic">Smart people do stupid things, especially when it comes to managing money.The former chairman of a major company held $200,000 of Krugerrands in his IRA rollover account, even though gold coins produce no income to shield from taxes.Another executive with a $450,000 annual base salary didn't know publicly traded bonds could be sold prior to maturity.A retiree of another major firm took the funds from his benefit plans in a lump sum, forgoing the option of 10-year averaging.E. Deane Kanaly, chairman and chief executive of Kanaly Trust Co., Houston, says it's amazing how many executives can't manage their personal finances. Corporate finance is a lot easier than personal finance, he claims.The above examples are all taken from "The Kanaly Concept," (220 pages. 1986, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa. $20). Mr. Kanaly says he wrote the book to help untold numbers of Americans who are cheated by unlicensed financial managers and counselors who almost flaunt their conflicts of interest."Consider the widow whose banker advises her to put the insurance money in CDs - in his own bank of course - instead of in a carefully designed investment program," he says, adding that trust departments should be separated completely from banks to avoid such "terrible conflicts of interest."A Senate committee estimated U.S. citizens lose $91 billion a year because of poor financial advice. Mr. Kanaly says the biggest hazard faced by people who come into substantial sums of money is the predators who purport to be there to help with management or decisions - or with both."Millions will inherit billions in the next several decades," he points out. "It is a revolutionary socioeconomic phenomenon never before witnessed."But at the same time, financial counselors aren't being trained, and universities aren't offering financial planning courses. When it comes to finances, Mr. Kanaly says, Americans are ignorant.The costs of this neglect, in terms of money and human suffering, are staggering. "There is a close connection between personal health andfinancial health," Mr. Kanaly says."You go to the dentist every six months. And you go to the doctor once a year for a checkup. You should also visit your financial counselor at least once a year for a financial checkup," he said in a recent interview.A financial counselor, he says, should be similar to a general practitioner. "Know the difference between the doctor and the pharmacist who is selling the drugs," he cautions."Consider the Certified Financial Planner who conducts free seminars as a vehicle to tout specific investments, ostensibly the 'best' available in today's market, but in fact securities, syndications or tax shelters which yield the highest commissions to the seller at the moment."Mr. Kanaly recommends state or local licensing of financial planners and counselors, as well as required classes in personal finance for every college student."We should equip people to understand the effects of selling a business and of retiring, realizing that there is an unfortunate pattern that most people fall into when they inherit money, retire or sell a business. Most of these people have no experience dealing with liquid assets. They become the victims of the community at large, which oftentimes does not act in their best interest in selling products and services," he says."When an M.B.A. places his IRA in Krugerrands, it is clear that the educational process is incomplete," he says.Mr. Kanaly says the aggregate of assets held in trust by trust institutions in this country would be measured in the trillions of dollars, ''if we could ever get together and measure it. Trust assets would dwarf the national debt."If Americans are ever to get their financial affairs in order, he says, it must start at the household level. "We can't wait for the politicians to straighten out the mess."He hopes, however, that the tax shelter business will go down the drain if tax reform legislation is enacted."Tax shelters in oil and real estate have been the biggest waste of money and talent. Without them, billions of dollars will be freed up for productive investment," Mr. Kanaly says.What this country needs, he says, is well-trained, professional financial counselors, instead of "self-styled financial planners whose single credential may be little more than a desk in a brokerage office or a shingle on the door."Financial planners must customize their services to meet individual needs, he adds."What you do with your money depends on whether you have kids to put through college or an elderly parent in a nursing home to support," he says.Financial decisions also must be made in the context of the personalfinancial life cycle, which progresses from the formation stage to orientation, survival, accumulation and preservation of assets, he explains.Finally, he adds, it is important to understand the "megatrends" affecting our society, including the shift to a service economy, the new federalism, the retreat from the notion that more is always better and the increasing interdependence of the world economy."The Kanaly Concept" is essential reading for anyone hoping to achieve and maintain excellent financial health.</div>

Smart people do stupid things, especially when it comes to managing money. The former chairman of a major company held $200,000 of Krugerrands in his IRA rollover account, even though gold coins produce no income to shield from taxes.Another executive with a $450,000 annual base salary didn't know publicly traded bonds could be sold prior to maturity. A retiree of another major firm took the funds from his benefit plans in a lump sum, forgoing the option of 10-year averaging. E. Deane Kanaly, chairman and chief executive of Kanaly Trust Co., Houston, says it's amazing how many executives can't manage their personal finances. Corporate finance is a lot easier than personal finance, he claims. The above examples are all taken from "The Kanaly Concept," (220 pages. 1986, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa. $20). Mr. Kanaly says he wrote the book to help untold numbers of Americans who are cheated by unlicensed financial managers and counselors who almost flaunt their conflicts of interest. "Consider the widow whose banker advises her to put the insurance money in CDs - in his own bank of course - instead of in a carefully designed investment program," he says, adding that trust departments should be separated completely from banks to avoid such "terrible conflicts of interest." A Senate committee estimated U.S. citizens lose $91 billion a year because of poor financial advice. Mr. Kanaly says the biggest hazard faced by people who come into substantial sums of money is the predators who purport to be there to help with management or decisions - or with both. "Millions will inherit billions in the next several decades," he points out. "It is a revolutionary socioeconomic phenomenon never before witnessed." But at the same time, financial counselors aren't being trained, and universities aren't offering financial planning courses. When it comes to finances, Mr. Kanaly says, Americans are ignorant. The costs of this neglect, in terms of money and human suffering, are staggering. "There is a close connection between personal health and financial health," Mr. Kanaly says. "You go to the dentist every six months. And you go to the doctor once a year for a checkup. You should also visit your financial counselor at least once a year for a financial checkup," he said in a recent interview. A financial counselor, he says, should be similar to a general practitioner. "Know the difference between the doctor and the pharmacist who is selling the drugs," he cautions. "Consider the Certified Financial Planner who conducts free seminars as a vehicle to tout specific investments, ostensibly the 'best' available in today's market, but in fact securities, syndications or tax shelters which yield the highest commissions to the seller at the moment." Mr. Kanaly recommends state or local licensing of financial planners and counselors, as well as required classes in personal finance for every college student. "We should equip people to understand the effects of selling a business and of retiring, realizing that there is an unfortunate pattern that most people fall into when they inherit money, retire or sell a business. Most of these people have no experience dealing with liquid assets. They become the victims of the community at large, which oftentimes does not act in their best interest in selling products and services," he says. "When an M.B.A. places his IRA in Krugerrands, it is clear that the educational process is incomplete," he says. Mr. Kanaly says the aggregate of assets held in trust by trust institutions in this country would be measured in the trillions of dollars, ''if we could ever get together and measure it. Trust assets would dwarf the national debt." If Americans are ever to get their financial affairs in order, he says, it must start at the household level. "We can't wait for the politicians to straighten out the mess." He hopes, however, that the tax shelter business will go down the drain if tax reform legislation is enacted. "Tax shelters in oil and real estate have been the biggest waste of money and talent. Without them, billions of dollars will be freed up for productive investment," Mr. Kanaly says. What this country needs, he says, is well-trained, professional financial counselors, instead of "self-styled financial planners whose single credential may be little more than a desk in a brokerage office or a shingle on the door." Financial planners must customize their services to meet individual needs, he adds. "What you do with your money depends on whether you have kids to put through college or an elderly parent in a nursing home to support," he says. Financial decisions also must be made in the context of the personal financial life cycle, which progresses from the formation stage to orientation, survival, accumulation and preservation of assets, he explains. Finally, he adds, it is important to understand the "megatrends" affecting our society, including the shift to a service economy, the new federalism, the retreat from the notion that more is always better and the increasing interdependence of the world economy. "The Kanaly Concept" is essential reading for anyone hoping to achieve and maintain excellent financial health.

THE BASICS OF MONEY MANAGEMENT

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, concerned about passenger safety in turbulence, says the airlin</div>

THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, concerned about passenger safety in turbulence, says the airlin

<div class="phx-topic">THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, concerned about passenger safety in turbulence, says the airlines must tighten up their enforcement of the carry- on baggage rules. These require that baggage carried aboard a commercial flight fit either under the passenger's seat or in an overhead bin.Observing what every air traveler knows - that the rules are often honored only in the breach - the FAA has ordered each airline to submit a plan to limit carry-on baggage and thus, hopefully, to cut down on the abuses.The airlines don't like the idea because, they say, the FAA's proposal would require training a ground employee who would be required before each flight to certify that all baggage had been stowed properly.This would mean delays and extra costs, say the airlines. It also would mean that some travelers would be inconvenienced, as their excess baggage was off-loaded to be transferred from the cabin to the baggage hold. One frequent flyer who would be so inconvenienced is the syndicated columnist William F. Buckley Jr.Mr. Buckley said the new rules would prevent him from carrying his working tools - typewriter, computer, files, reading materials, etc. - with him in the aircraft cabin. Including essential personal items, Mr. Buckley said his carry-on baggage usually weighs 50 pounds.What is needed are more trolleys to help him get his baggage from the plane to the connecting flight, he said in a recent column.Certainly air travelers need a better way of transferring their carry-on baggage between connecting flights than the small trolleys that many persons find essential.These are unsafe - the shock cord used to secure bags on them can come lose and cause serious injury - and only aggravate the problem insofar as they are one more additional item to maneuver along crowded aisles.Given this much agreement with Mr. Buckley, we cannot help but feel that those travelers like him who somehow feel that they can single-handedl y revive the days of the steamer trunk owe their fellow-travelers more consideration. The airlines may not like what the FAA is doing, but no one - not even Mr. Buckley - denies that an excess of baggage under the seats and in the overhead bins can compromise air safety.One solution would be to require, as some airlines already are doing, that all carry-on luggage fit into a measured container. This would assure that over-sized pieces would be carried as checked baggage. Another would be to limit bags to under the seat stowage and reserve overhead bins for overcoats, hats and other items of clothing.The FAA's solution may not be the best, but at least it is a start.Air travelers like the solipsistic Mr. Buckley need to be reminded that in conditions as crowded as they are aboard today's jet aircraft, space needs to be shared in as equitable a way as possible.</div>

THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, concerned about passenger safety in turbulence, says the airlines must tighten up their enforcement of the carry- on baggage rules. These require that baggage carried aboard a commercial flight fit either under the passenger's seat or in an overhead bin. Observing what every air traveler knows - that the rules are often honored only in the breach - the FAA has ordered each airline to submit a plan to limit carry-on baggage and thus, hopefully, to cut down on the abuses.The airlines don't like the idea because, they say, the FAA's proposal would require training a ground employee who would be required before each flight to certify that all baggage had been stowed properly. This would mean delays and extra costs, say the airlines. It also would mean that some travelers would be inconvenienced, as their excess baggage was off-loaded to be transferred from the cabin to the baggage hold. One frequent flyer who would be so inconvenienced is the syndicated columnist William F. Buckley Jr. Mr. Buckley said the new rules would prevent him from carrying his working tools - typewriter, computer, files, reading materials, etc. - with him in the aircraft cabin. Including essential personal items, Mr. Buckley said his carry-on baggage usually weighs 50 pounds. What is needed are more trolleys to help him get his baggage from the plane to the connecting flight, he said in a recent column. Certainly air travelers need a better way of transferring their carry-on baggage between connecting flights than the small trolleys that many persons find essential. These are unsafe - the shock cord used to secure bags on them can come lose and cause serious injury - and only aggravate the problem insofar as they are one more additional item to maneuver along crowded aisles. Given this much agreement with Mr. Buckley, we cannot help but feel that those travelers like him who somehow feel that they can single-handedl y revive the days of the steamer trunk owe their fellow-travelers more consideration. The airlines may not like what the FAA is doing, but no one - not even Mr. Buckley - denies that an excess of baggage under the seats and in the overhead bins can compromise air safety. One solution would be to require, as some airlines already are doing, that all carry-on luggage fit into a measured container. This would assure that over-sized pieces would be carried as checked baggage. Another would be to limit bags to under the seat stowage and reserve overhead bins for overcoats, hats and other items of clothing. The FAA's solution may not be the best, but at least it is a start. Air travelers like the solipsistic Mr. Buckley need to be reminded that in conditions as crowded as they are aboard today's jet aircraft, space needs to be shared in as equitable a way as possible.

BAGGAGE BROUHAHA

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">NEW YORK STATE IS ATTEMPTING to bring an entirely new kind of regulation to railroads. Legis</div>

NEW YORK STATE IS ATTEMPTING to bring an entirely new kind of regulation to railroads. Legis

<div class="phx-topic">NEW YORK STATE IS ATTEMPTING to bring an entirely new kind of regulation to railroads.Legislation signed recently by Gov. Mario Cuomo requires railroads with freight operations in the state that are valued at more than $10 million a year to provide sanitary drinking water and private toilet facilities on board locomotives. The problem, it seems, isn't that existing facilities haven't been private or sanitary. The problem is that facilities don't exist.According to one report, the only reason for such an oversight in engineering is that the Occupational Safety and Health Act has no jurisdiction over moving equipment on railroads. Now New York State, whose high standard of cleanliness has earned it national fame, is seeking to rein in the railroads in the same way that New York City residents curb their dogs.What a relief. Never mind that locomotives have been running for well over 100 years without toilets. Never mind that in most locomotive cabs there's scant room to sit behind the controls, much less anywhere else. Never mind that New York is a state where tens of thousands of buses and subways ride the roads and rails without any such amenities. The state has to start somewhere. Who knows? If this experiment with the rails works out, it might someday make a pass at the parks or even city streets.Where will New York's passion for cleanliness end? And why does it seem to be singling out rail freight carriers on an issue of such minuscule public impact? Certainly, scores of cargo aircraft fly into and out of New York every day. Are their accommodations less important than those of railroads?It's hard to imagine that the new regulations will ever amount to more than a drop in the bucket in the overall health and safety of the industrial work place. Meanwhile, they will inconvenience rail carriers. Certainly, Gov. Cuomo could find more pressing problems that deserve the state's attention.</div>

NEW YORK STATE IS ATTEMPTING to bring an entirely new kind of regulation to railroads. Legislation signed recently by Gov. Mario Cuomo requires railroads with freight operations in the state that are valued at more than $10 million a year to provide sanitary drinking water and private toilet facilities on board locomotives. The problem, it seems, isn't that existing facilities haven't been private or sanitary. The problem is that facilities don't exist.According to one report, the only reason for such an oversight in engineering is that the Occupational Safety and Health Act has no jurisdiction over moving equipment on railroads. Now New York State, whose high standard of cleanliness has earned it national fame, is seeking to rein in the railroads in the same way that New York City residents curb their dogs. What a relief. Never mind that locomotives have been running for well over 100 years without toilets. Never mind that in most locomotive cabs there's scant room to sit behind the controls, much less anywhere else. Never mind that New York is a state where tens of thousands of buses and subways ride the roads and rails without any such amenities. The state has to start somewhere. Who knows? If this experiment with the rails works out, it might someday make a pass at the parks or even city streets. Where will New York's passion for cleanliness end? And why does it seem to be singling out rail freight carriers on an issue of such minuscule public impact? Certainly, scores of cargo aircraft fly into and out of New York every day. Are their accommodations less important than those of railroads? It's hard to imagine that the new regulations will ever amount to more than a drop in the bucket in the overall health and safety of the industrial work place. Meanwhile, they will inconvenience rail carriers. Certainly, Gov. Cuomo could find more pressing problems that deserve the state's attention.

A CLEANER NEW YORK

Use code SKSGW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Use code SKSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SkSW25 at checkout to save 25% on a SIlver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

The world of LTL is slow to embrace change. Business anachronisms permeate current supply chain processes. These vestiges of the way things used to work define the LTL freight transportation procurement process of many modern shippers.David Knuth, logistics specialist at IEWC, a global supplier of cable and wire based in Wisconsin, is happy to have modernized the RFP process, automating the entire LTL bidding procedure with Bid$ense, SMC³’s automated truckload and LTL freight transportation sourcing solution. But when prompted, he can still recall what once was.In his previous job, a large part of his duties were consumed by creating an intermodal bid package for carriers. In a spreadsheet, Knuth detailed the company’s volumes lane by lane, taking care to delete any errant keystrokes or misleading data. He would then email out the information to each carrier, taking time to respond to detailed technical questions about the spreadsheet data. Finally, he had to compile all the results, create an algorithm that would compare the carriers on each lane, and award the business.“It was a huge undertaking. It took about four months to do,” Knuth said of the old process. “It was almost a full-time job for that part of the year, every year.”In his new job at IEWC, he sat down with Bid$ense on day one and was amazed at the capabilities. Knuth had never before used a bid tool. SMC³’s latest versions of Bid$ense automate the process even further, taking truckload and LTL RFPs entirely online. The tool draws on RFP best-practices protocols to streamline the bidding communication process, enabling bidding carriers to respond accurately and promptly to shipper requests. The solution also does all the distribution work automatically, electronically submitting shipper bid data to carriers based on their actual service capabilities and performance records. Carriers are alerted with timely prompts for RFP deliverables, so shippers aren’t waiting by the phone for responses.Another benefit of automating the process is the data-cleansing assistance. When Knuth sent spreadsheets to carriers, data errors might cloud the bidding process; he might have to resend data or simply accept a price that did not truly reflect the costs of doing business. Data cleansing is incredibly beneficial, he said.The spreadsheet technique also made bidding analysis an onerous task. Since Bid$ense automates and streamlines the entire RFP process, intensive examination is now simple. SMC³ knows that each bid has more than one best outcome. With uniform responses from each carrier, shippers can quickly rank results and create an unlimited quantity of what-if scenarios to make the optimal procurement decision.Jesse Burnett of Central Garden &amp; Pet experiences many of the same benefits. Founded in 1980, Central Garden &amp; Pet has spent the last three decades growing from a small garden supply company to a provider of a range of products from dog chews and bird seed to soil supplements and natural insecticides. For much of its life, the company shipped these disparate goods via LTL and truckload carriers to retailers throughout the country, relying on each business unit to negotiate directly with their freight transportation providers. This arrangement worked fairly well for a small company, but as Central Garden &amp; Pet expanded, leadership decided to consolidate decision making.Burnett helped centralize the transportation decision making in 2015 with SMC³’s Bid$ense. Before Bid$ense, every business unit operated independently as far as negotiating with carriers.“There were a lot of different things just floating around,” he said. “We didn’t have master agreements in place; no national pricing at all. The pricing from carriers was just all over the place, depending on where you were.”The transformations he saw with Bid$ense were immediate. Burnett has been using the tool about every other year since its implementation at the company. Central Garden and Pet’s $19.6 million 2019 LTL bid saved the company just more than 9 percent when compared to its historical average. For Burnett, though, bid automation extends far beyond savings.“We knew that we weren’t getting the best pricing offer from our carriers just because nothing was centralized,” he continued. “We knew that if we combined everything from all these business units and paired it with one corporate offering, then it would drive some cost benefit with it.”When the company initially decided to centralize bid procurement, executives researched a number of different methodologies and technologies. In the end, though, Burnett found that Bid$ense was both widespread and well known, and that his carrier partners already knew how to use the application. Burnett also highlighted the data-cleansing process as a major benefit, saying the rigorous process ensures that carriers always return the best price.“It definitely has helped drive savings,” he said. “Any time you go out there and you drive that competitiveness with the carriers and they know they’re in a bid environment, it seems to sharpen their pencils.”Transportation procurement is an integral part of the modern supply chain. With Bid$ense, shippers can develop a strategic implementation plan that saves them time and money, but also helps them create strong relationships with their carrier partners. These carriers appreciate the solution’s data-cleansing process; when carriers receive a complete shipment history and future volume forecast, they don’t have to guess on pricing. Carriers that receive more data from shippers get a complete picture of that shipper’s freight, allowing them to accurately plan instead of simply preparing for the worst-case scenario. Clean data presented through an automated system can lead to both bigger shipment savings and a lasting partnership between carrier and customer.Whether customers are looking to streamline over-the-road transportation bidding by automating the RFP process or create an entirely new, centralized sourcing process, Bid$ense has the analytical horsepower to get the job done.SMC³ 2020 Customer Case Study

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code SKSGW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code SKSW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code SKSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Cabinet-level Economic Policy Council recently proposed sweeping changes in the way that the Uni</div>

The Cabinet-level Economic Policy Council recently proposed sweeping changes in the way that the Uni

<div class="phx-topic">The Cabinet-level Economic Policy Council recently proposed sweeping changes in the way that the United States launches commercial satellites. If executed, the plan would open the door to the development of a U.S. private sector launch industry. It also would help reduce much of the satellite launch backlog that has resulted from the loss of the Challenger space shuttle, the grounding of the remaining three orbiters and the serious technical problems with the United States' three unmanned rocket systems.The plan calls for barring the National Aeronautics and Space Administration from using space shuttles to launch commercial satellites except when the shuttle is the only vehicle capable of doing so, or where there is an overwhelming foreign policy or national security interest. The Economic Policy Council proposal also would require NASA to terminate six current agreements to launch commercial satellites.The Council's proposals would boost the private launch industry by eliminating the fear within the investment community that private launch firms would have to compete with heavily subsidized government launch services. This concern has been the principal obstacle to raising money for private launch services.A private launch industry would ease the enormous backlog of unlaunched private and government satellites. Most of the 43 commercial and foreign satellites waiting to be launched could be carried by unmanned rockets (known as Expendable Launch Vehicles, or ELVs). This would leave the three remaining space shuttles free for manned missions or those involving national security.Because private firms entering the launch business would be investing their own capital to reopen the ELV production lines, NASA and the taxpayer would be relieved of the need to spend between $200 million and $400 million to open those lines. Creating strong price competition in a market where none exists, moreover, would increase launch options available to firms wishing to deploy satellites and costs would fall.Finally, the firms initially offering launch services would become the nucleus of a new full-scale commercial space industry, promising untold commercial possibilities. There could be, for example, enormous export potential as carriers for foreign payloads.The proposed new policy is essential for private launches. Regrettably, NASA is lobbying vigorously against it. The space agency was the only dissenting vote in the Economic Policy Council meeting that set the new launch initiative, and it consistently has opposed attempts to reduce its domination of space-related activities.This has been particularly true in the area of launch services using ELVs, despite a 1984 presidential directive mandating cooperation in efforts to privatize these unmanned rockets. In recent weeks, as the likelihood of a cabinet-level decision in favor of ELV privatization became apparent, NASA intensified its obstruction, encouraging members of the House and Senate to introduce legislation blocking it. NASA also has been issuing press statements questioning the viability of private launch services and dragging its feet on finalizing agreements to privatize ELV systems.NASA ignores that fact that there really is no option to ELV privatization if the United States is to solve the current launch shortage.Ronald Reagan must ensure that NASA stops undermining his space commercialization initiative.</div>

The Cabinet-level Economic Policy Council recently proposed sweeping changes in the way that the United States launches commercial satellites. If executed, the plan would open the door to the development of a U.S. private sector launch industry. It also would help reduce much of the satellite launch backlog that has resulted from the loss of the Challenger space shuttle, the grounding of the remaining three orbiters and the serious technical problems with the United States' three unmanned rocket systems. The plan calls for barring the National Aeronautics and Space Administration from using space shuttles to launch commercial satellites except when the shuttle is the only vehicle capable of doing so, or where there is an overwhelming foreign policy or national security interest. The Economic Policy Council proposal also would require NASA to terminate six current agreements to launch commercial satellites.The Council's proposals would boost the private launch industry by eliminating the fear within the investment community that private launch firms would have to compete with heavily subsidized government launch services. This concern has been the principal obstacle to raising money for private launch services. A private launch industry would ease the enormous backlog of unlaunched private and government satellites. Most of the 43 commercial and foreign satellites waiting to be launched could be carried by unmanned rockets (known as Expendable Launch Vehicles, or ELVs). This would leave the three remaining space shuttles free for manned missions or those involving national security. Because private firms entering the launch business would be investing their own capital to reopen the ELV production lines, NASA and the taxpayer would be relieved of the need to spend between $200 million and $400 million to open those lines. Creating strong price competition in a market where none exists, moreover, would increase launch options available to firms wishing to deploy satellites and costs would fall. Finally, the firms initially offering launch services would become the nucleus of a new full-scale commercial space industry, promising untold commercial possibilities. There could be, for example, enormous export potential as carriers for foreign payloads. The proposed new policy is essential for private launches. Regrettably, NASA is lobbying vigorously against it. The space agency was the only dissenting vote in the Economic Policy Council meeting that set the new launch initiative, and it consistently has opposed attempts to reduce its domination of space-related activities. This has been particularly true in the area of launch services using ELVs, despite a 1984 presidential directive mandating cooperation in efforts to privatize these unmanned rockets. In recent weeks, as the likelihood of a cabinet-level decision in favor of ELV privatization became apparent, NASA intensified its obstruction, encouraging members of the House and Senate to introduce legislation blocking it. NASA also has been issuing press statements questioning the viability of private launch services and dragging its feet on finalizing agreements to privatize ELV systems. NASA ignores that fact that there really is no option to ELV privatization if the United States is to solve the current launch shortage. Ronald Reagan must ensure that NASA stops undermining his space commercialization initiative.

BOOST PRIVATE SPACE LAUNCHES

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The United States and the European Community still are trying to smooth out the wrinkles in the citr</div>

The United States and the European Community still are trying to smooth out the wrinkles in the citr

<div class="phx-topic">The United States and the European Community still are trying to smooth out the wrinkles in the citrus-pasta trade accord reached a week ago.This week,the United States plans to rescind the 30 percentand 40 percenttariffs it imposed on EC pasta, while the EC will withdraw the tariff increases it applied in reprisal on U.S. lemons and walnuts.But it won't be before next month that the EC and the United States will implement other provisions in the accord. First,the EC's Council of Ministers must approve the pact and right now Europe is on holiday.Not until the EC Council clears the accord will the United States sign an agreement with the EC increasing the present import quota on EC semi-finished steel.The EC had expected that the United States would sign the steel pact immediately.Similarly,the United States will not enlarge EC cheese import quotas until the EC acts to lower its duties on U.S. citrus products,almonds and groundnuts.There is even a chance that the United States might not enlarge the cheese quotas until October, because of procedural factors.The United States held another round of talks last week with the United Kingdom on future ground rules for air service between the two countries.But as of Friday negotiators still had not agreed on how to replace the capacity accord that expired in July. A State Department official said the capacity issue was discussed early last week. Thursday and Friday discussion turned to pricing issues. The United States is seeking a more liberal agreement,allowing for greater competition,than the one just expired.It's becoming clear that Congress may not get an acid rain bill to the White House this year.The House Energy Committee met briefly last week to prepare for final consideration on the measure. It adjourned without taking any votes. The bill won't be considered again by the House panel until at least September.The House Ways and Means Committee, which had been making noise about holding hearings of its own on the revenue-raising aspects of the proposal, has scheduled nothing.It's taken two years, but the government is a bit closer to appointing commissioners to look into shipbuilding and national defense.A staff from the Navy has been mobilized for the so-called BennettCommission, named after its sponsor Rep. Charles E. Bennet, D-Fla., chairman of the House Armed Services' Seapower Subcommittee.But the executive branch decided months ago that naming representative commissioners from industry, as required by the 1984 law, would constitute a conflict of interest. So, no members have been named.The House took the initiative and passed legislation in May to exempt members of this public-private industry commission from the conflict of interest requirements.The Senate ignored the matter. But, to get things rolling, the House attached the substance of its bill to the defense authorization measure last week. That at least will put the issue before a House-Senate conference committee after the recess.One of those little-noticed-and-tucked-away provisions that tax bills are famous for would strike a blow against insurance company use of gender-based mortality tables.The provision would kill the $1,000 annual tax exclusion that widows and widowers receive on the interest payments from the insurance policies of their spouses.The Senate provision, agreed to by the House, would require sex neutral mortality tables be used for determining what portion of the payments are actually interest.The Water Resources Development Act hasn't made the progress congressional staff and industry sources predicted earlier this year.But action on the port and waterway plan after Congress returns from its August recess still is a possibility.Proposals have been bouncing back and forth between the House and Senate, one staffer said.Senate Public Works Committee Chairman Robert T. Stafford, R-Vt., still is hopeful Congress will pass the long-standing attempt to reform funding for port and waterways development and dredging projects before the legislative body recesses for the year Oct. 3.All commercial airlines flying between the United States and Manila, capital of the Philippines, now are required to notify passengers that the U.S. government considers there to be inadequate security at Manila International Airport.The notice requirement was imposed last week by Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole following a review of preliminary findings about security at Manila airport by the Federal Aviation Administration in May.Notice of inadequate security must be written and included in, or on, tickets issued to Manila-bound travelers.The House floor flurry last week over whether the Great Lakes should be allocated defense cargoes looked like it might cut straight through the Port of Baltimore.Rep. Helen Delich Bentley, R-Md., spoke and voted against the amendment, offered by Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio. Her usual staunch advocacy was in the face of the position of her new ranking minority member of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Rep. Robert W. Davis of Michigan, who favored it.Rep. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., another protector of the interests of the Port of Baltimore, kept silent during debate but, in the end, was recorded as voting against the measure.</div>

The United States and the European Community still are trying to smooth out the wrinkles in the citrus-pasta trade accord reached a week ago. This week,the United States plans to rescind the 30 percentand 40 percenttariffs it imposed on EC pasta, while the EC will withdraw the tariff increases it applied in reprisal on U.S. lemons and walnuts.But it won't be before next month that the EC and the United States will implement other provisions in the accord. First,the EC's Council of Ministers must approve the pact and right now Europe is on holiday. Not until the EC Council clears the accord will the United States sign an agreement with the EC increasing the present import quota on EC semi-finished steel. The EC had expected that the United States would sign the steel pact immediately. Similarly,the United States will not enlarge EC cheese import quotas until the EC acts to lower its duties on U.S. citrus products,almonds and groundnuts. There is even a chance that the United States might not enlarge the cheese quotas until October, because of procedural factors. The United States held another round of talks last week with the United Kingdom on future ground rules for air service between the two countries. But as of Friday negotiators still had not agreed on how to replace the capacity accord that expired in July. A State Department official said the capacity issue was discussed early last week. Thursday and Friday discussion turned to pricing issues. The United States is seeking a more liberal agreement,allowing for greater competition,than the one just expired. It's becoming clear that Congress may not get an acid rain bill to the White House this year. The House Energy Committee met briefly last week to prepare for final consideration on the measure. It adjourned without taking any votes. The bill won't be considered again by the House panel until at least September. The House Ways and Means Committee, which had been making noise about holding hearings of its own on the revenue-raising aspects of the proposal, has scheduled nothing. It's taken two years, but the government is a bit closer to appointing commissioners to look into shipbuilding and national defense. A staff from the Navy has been mobilized for the so-called Bennett Commission, named after its sponsor Rep. Charles E. Bennet, D-Fla., chairman of the House Armed Services' Seapower Subcommittee. But the executive branch decided months ago that naming representative commissioners from industry, as required by the 1984 law, would constitute a conflict of interest. So, no members have been named. The House took the initiative and passed legislation in May to exempt members of this public-private industry commission from the conflict of interest requirements. The Senate ignored the matter. But, to get things rolling, the House attached the substance of its bill to the defense authorization measure last week. That at least will put the issue before a House-Senate conference committee after the recess. One of those little-noticed-and-tucked-away provisions that tax bills are famous for would strike a blow against insurance company use of gender-based mortality tables. The provision would kill the $1,000 annual tax exclusion that widows and widowers receive on the interest payments from the insurance policies of their spouses. The Senate provision, agreed to by the House, would require sex neutral mortality tables be used for determining what portion of the payments are actually interest. The Water Resources Development Act hasn't made the progress congressional staff and industry sources predicted earlier this year. But action on the port and waterway plan after Congress returns from its August recess still is a possibility. Proposals have been bouncing back and forth between the House and Senate, one staffer said. Senate Public Works Committee Chairman Robert T. Stafford, R-Vt., still is hopeful Congress will pass the long-standing attempt to reform funding for port and waterways development and dredging projects before the legislative body recesses for the year Oct. 3. All commercial airlines flying between the United States and Manila, capital of the Philippines, now are required to notify passengers that the U.S. government considers there to be inadequate security at Manila International Airport. The notice requirement was imposed last week by Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole following a review of preliminary findings about security at Manila airport by the Federal Aviation Administration in May. Notice of inadequate security must be written and included in, or on, tickets issued to Manila-bound travelers. The House floor flurry last week over whether the Great Lakes should be allocated defense cargoes looked like it might cut straight through the Port of Baltimore. Rep. Helen Delich Bentley, R-Md., spoke and voted against the amendment, offered by Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio. Her usual staunch advocacy was in the face of the position of her new ranking minority member of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Rep. Robert W. Davis of Michigan, who favored it. Rep. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., another protector of the interests of the Port of Baltimore, kept silent during debate but, in the end, was recorded as voting against the measure.

WASHINGTON REPORT US-EC PASTA PACT STILL COOKING

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">As Paul Revere prepared to make his historic ride to warn the American revolutionaries that the Brit</div>

As Paul Revere prepared to make his historic ride to warn the American revolutionaries that the Brit

<div class="phx-topic">As Paul Revere prepared to make his historic ride to warn the American revolutionaries that the British were coming, two lanterns in the window of Boston's North Church steeple were the signal to alert him that the British troops were coming by water and one lantern was the signal that they were coming by land. Two lanterns appeared and he was off on a gallop. But if Revere were looking at North Church steeple today, he might see three lanterns in the window. The British are coming by land and sea. And they are staying to buy and sell.The United States is the biggest debt and equity market in the world today, says Keith R. Harris. "And, if I may take some license with a well-known comment by that famed U.S. banker, Mr. Willie Sutton, you go where the money is.Mr. Harris is the epitome of a new breed of Big Bang British bankers who are bursting into the arena of global banking business. With brains and bravado and spurred on by the fast-approaching Oct. 27 Big Bang deregulation of the British securities markets, these bankers are sopping up investment, securities and financing business here and elsewhere in the world. Only 33, Mr. Harris is the managing director of Morgan Grenfell Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of the 148 year-old British merchant bank Morgan Grenfell &amp; Co. Ltd.I have a hunch. What the Japanese have done to U.S. manufacturing industries, the British may well do in the U.S. financial industries. The British are certainly primed for it.After October, British bankers will be free to operate as commercial and investment banks, stock brokerage houses and stockjobbers, which is somewhat equivalent to those who make a market in the United States. In other words, the British financial market will be wide open. In anticipation of this, Morgan Grenfell Group PLC, the London-based parent company, recently has purchased a stock brokerage house, Pember &amp; Boyle, and a stockjobber, Pinchin Denny, and added some 400 new employees to handle this business. And in September last year, it sent the energetic Mr. Harris to New York to head up their U.S. operations.They could not have picked a better person, it would appear.Mr. Harris received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Surrey at the age of 24. One assumes he would have gotten it even faster if the British educational system wasn't so stodgy. He knew what business he was going into even then. His doctoral thesis dealt with the role of financial intermediaries in mergers. Morgan Grenfell has executed twice as many mergers and acquisitions for its clients in recent years than its nearest U.K. competitor. Mr. Harris joined Morgan Grenfell in 1980 as an assistant director in its International Corporate Capital Market Division. By 1984, he became the youngest director in the history of the company.His job in the United States is to build Morgan Grenfell into a full- service U.S. investment banker. In other words, if you've got money, want money, need money or want to take away someone else's money, Morgan Grenfell will be more than happy to accommodate you. That's what you call full service. Willie Sutton was no fool.Mr. Harris explains the U.S. operations of Morgan Grenfell in more dignified terms. "We provide corporate finance service, asset-based financing and arbitrage. In addition, we are expanding our operations in international equity sales, investment management and capital markets. Nicely said, but his actions were a bit more blunt. Within six months of heading up the U.S. office, he invited (to use his language) Gregory T.K. Hsu, the head of Chemical Bank's capital markets, and five other member's of Chemical Bank's capital markets unit to establish a capital markets operation at Morgan Grenfell.Good-looking and wholesome in a surprisely American way, Mr. Harris is quite deferential when he speaks about U.S. financial institutions. What we British are doing is learning to play the game by American rules, he said. The assimilation and consolidation of financial institutions in the United States and Europe have put a lot of money into a few hands. The leverage can be startling. The need for quick investment decisions and immediate responses tofinancial opportunities demands that money managers throughout the world learn to operate quickly and decisively like Americans.The problem with that for the Americans, from a competitive point of view, is that the British are awfully good at international money management. What gave the Americans an advantage, or at least a good shot at competing with the British, was the latter's almost diffident approach to business. For the British, business was something one attempted to work into a hectic social life. A necessary evil to be done before and after lunch. This new breed of British banker is taking business seriously.I've always admired the money-motivation of Americans, says Mr. Harris. "I can relate to a money-oriented attitude. I'm like that, too. Too bad for the Americans.The assimilation and consolidation of Western financial institutions also demanded that institutions like Morgan Grenfell obtain more capital to compete with publicly held U.K. competitors and the foreign securities giants from the United States that are invading London's financial markets. In June, the parent corporation placed 32 million equity shares in the hands of the public and obtained $230 million. In July, it obtained another $200 million through a perpetual floating rate offering. The Japanese purchased a large portion of that offering. With those offerings, the bank has almost $1 billion in net assets to compete against the likes of Solomon Bros. and Goldman Sachs &amp; Co.Aside from making money, Mr. Harris doesn't have many hobbies. "My wife Judy is into riding, he says, so in the interest of family harmony I've taken it up a bit, too.The good news is that he rides English saddle. Any American riding Western saddle can easily shove an Englishman off his English saddle with little problem. That might indicate that Mr. Harris retains other British idiosyncrasies that make him vulnerable in business as well.</div>

As Paul Revere prepared to make his historic ride to warn the American revolutionaries that the British were coming, two lanterns in the window of Boston's North Church steeple were the signal to alert him that the British troops were coming by water and one lantern was the signal that they were coming by land. Two lanterns appeared and he was off on a gallop. But if Revere were looking at North Church steeple today, he might see three lanterns in the window. The British are coming by land and sea. And they are staying to buy and sell. The United States is the biggest debt and equity market in the world today, says Keith R. Harris. "And, if I may take some license with a well-known comment by that famed U.S. banker, Mr. Willie Sutton, you go where the money is.Mr. Harris is the epitome of a new breed of Big Bang British bankers who are bursting into the arena of global banking business. With brains and bravado and spurred on by the fast-approaching Oct. 27 Big Bang deregulation of the British securities markets, these bankers are sopping up investment, securities and financing business here and elsewhere in the world. Only 33, Mr. Harris is the managing director of Morgan Grenfell Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of the 148 year-old British merchant bank Morgan Grenfell & Co. Ltd. I have a hunch. What the Japanese have done to U.S. manufacturing industries, the British may well do in the U.S. financial industries. The British are certainly primed for it. After October, British bankers will be free to operate as commercial and investment banks, stock brokerage houses and stockjobbers, which is somewhat equivalent to those who make a market in the United States. In other words, the British financial market will be wide open. In anticipation of this, Morgan Grenfell Group PLC, the London-based parent company, recently has purchased a stock brokerage house, Pember & Boyle, and a stockjobber, Pinchin Denny, and added some 400 new employees to handle this business. And in September last year, it sent the energetic Mr. Harris to New York to head up their U.S. operations. They could not have picked a better person, it would appear. Mr. Harris received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Surrey at the age of 24. One assumes he would have gotten it even faster if the British educational system wasn't so stodgy. He knew what business he was going into even then. His doctoral thesis dealt with the role of financial intermediaries in mergers. Morgan Grenfell has executed twice as many mergers and acquisitions for its clients in recent years than its nearest U.K. competitor. Mr. Harris joined Morgan Grenfell in 1980 as an assistant director in its International Corporate Capital Market Division. By 1984, he became the youngest director in the history of the company. His job in the United States is to build Morgan Grenfell into a full- service U.S. investment banker. In other words, if you've got money, want money, need money or want to take away someone else's money, Morgan Grenfell will be more than happy to accommodate you. That's what you call full service. Willie Sutton was no fool. Mr. Harris explains the U.S. operations of Morgan Grenfell in more dignified terms. "We provide corporate finance service, asset-based financing and arbitrage. In addition, we are expanding our operations in international equity sales, investment management and capital markets. Nicely said, but his actions were a bit more blunt. Within six months of heading up the U.S. office, he invited (to use his language) Gregory T.K. Hsu, the head of Chemical Bank's capital markets, and five other member's of Chemical Bank's capital markets unit to establish a capital markets operation at Morgan Grenfell. Good-looking and wholesome in a surprisely American way, Mr. Harris is quite deferential when he speaks about U.S. financial institutions. What we British are doing is learning to play the game by American rules, he said. The assimilation and consolidation of financial institutions in the United States and Europe have put a lot of money into a few hands. The leverage can be startling. The need for quick investment decisions and immediate responses to financial opportunities demands that money managers throughout the world learn to operate quickly and decisively like Americans. The problem with that for the Americans, from a competitive point of view, is that the British are awfully good at international money management. What gave the Americans an advantage, or at least a good shot at competing with the British, was the latter's almost diffident approach to business. For the British, business was something one attempted to work into a hectic social life. A necessary evil to be done before and after lunch. This new breed of British banker is taking business seriously. I've always admired the money-motivation of Americans, says Mr. Harris. "I can relate to a money-oriented attitude. I'm like that, too. Too bad for the Americans. The assimilation and consolidation of Western financial institutions also demanded that institutions like Morgan Grenfell obtain more capital to compete with publicly held U.K. competitors and the foreign securities giants from the United States that are invading London's financial markets. In June, the parent corporation placed 32 million equity shares in the hands of the public and obtained $230 million. In July, it obtained another $200 million through a perpetual floating rate offering. The Japanese purchased a large portion of that offering. With those offerings, the bank has almost $1 billion in net assets to compete against the likes of Solomon Bros. and Goldman Sachs & Co. Aside from making money, Mr. Harris doesn't have many hobbies. "My wife Judy is into riding, he says, so in the interest of family harmony I've taken it up a bit, too. The good news is that he rides English saddle. Any American riding Western saddle can easily shove an Englishman off his English saddle with little problem. That might indicate that Mr. Harris retains other British idiosyncrasies that make him vulnerable in business as well.

Commentary