CONTENTS Atomic Energy Commission, dated August 3, 1966.. Department of Justice, dated July 5, 1966.. Department of the Navy, dated August 2, 1966–. Department of State, dated July 29, 1966. Federal Maritime Commission, dated July 27, 1966, and March 31, General Accounting Office, dated July 20, 1966. Fischer, Henry G., president, Pike & Fischer, Inc., 1726 M Street James, Ralph K. R., Adm., U.S. Navy (retired), executive director, Committee of American Steamship Lines, 1155 15th Street, NW., Mahoney, John R., attorney, Casey, Lane & Mittendorf, 26 Broad- way, New York, N.Y.; accompanied by Charles D. Marshall, chair- man, Associated Latin American Freight Conferences, 11 Broad- Federal Maritime Commission, dated January 26, 1966- General Accounting Office, dated November 4, 1965. General Services Administration, dated May 25, 1966. 138 Dowd, Henry R., president, Transocean Petroleum Carriers, Inc., 17 Battery Place, New York, N.Y.; accompanied by Capt. V. Bruer, president, Marine Carriers, 17 Battery Place, New York, Johnson, Nicholas, Administrator, Maritime Administration, Depart- ment of Commerce, Washington, D.C.; accompanied by Carl Davis, General Counsel; and William Burchill, Office of the General Kendall, Lane C., commercial shipping advisor to the commander, Military Sea Transportation Service, Washington, D.C. King, Archibald E., president, Isthmian Lines, 90 Broad Street, New Shapiro, Alvin, executive vice president, American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc., 919 18th Street, NW., Washington, D.C.; accom- panied by Richard Kurrus, 2000 K Street, NW., Washington, D.C., on behalf of American Tramp Ship Owners Association; Hoyt Had- dock, executive secretary, AFL-CIO Maritime Committee, 100 In- diana Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.; Marvin Coles, 1000 Con- necticut Avenue, Washington, D.C., on behalf of Committee of American Tanker Owners; and Walter Oates, Shipbuilders Council of America, 1730 K Street NW., Washington, D.Ĉ.. Wang, Samuel H., president, American Bulk Carriers, Inc., 201 East 42d Street, New York, N.Y., presented by Gerald Greenwald, at- 169 III MARITIME LEGISLATION MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1966 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES OF THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:40 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Vance Hartke presiding. Senator HARTKE. Good morning, gentlemen. The purpose of the hearing this morning on S. 3446 is to hear witnesses on this legislation which will consolidate and reenact certain shipping laws of the United States. For many years, many of us interested in promoting the future of our merchant marine have realized the need to organize rationally and reenact the numerous scattered statutes affecting U.S. maritime programs. This undertaking was begun last year. The initial draft was widely circulated and reviewed by all concerned. On the basis of the earlier comments received, the chairman introduced, on June 2, S. 3446, which reflected the work that had been accomplished at that time. I would hope that the hearings today will obtain the information necessary to make all final corrections so the committee can consider it in the very near future in executive session. Any comment received from agencies or departments will be placed in the record at this point. (The agency comments follows:) Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION, July 27, 1966. U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Federal Maritime Commission is pleased to offer its comments on S. 3446, a bill "To consolidate and reenact certain of the Shipping laws of the United States, and for other purposes.' In our letter of March 31, 1966, a copy of which is enclosed, we furnished our views on the draft of this bill and many of our comments set forth in that letter have been adopted. Additional comments which we would make at this time are as follows: 1. Page 22 of the Act-Section 1202a, replacing section 14 of the Shipping Act, 1916, omits a description of the trade involved. While this is not an important point we do bring it to your attention. 2. Section 1304a authorizes the issuance of subpeonas by members of the Commission or any officer or employee designated by it. However, enforcement in the courts is authorized only as to subpeonas issued "by the Commission." We would suggest that the phrase "or any officer or employee designated by it" be inserted after the words "by the Commission" in line 1, page 54. 3. Section 36 of the 1916 Act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to refuse clearance to a vessel destined for either a foreign or domestic port whenever he Staff counsel assigned to this hearing: William C. Foster. 1 shall have sufficient reason to believe that that vessel has refused to accept or receive freight or cargo tendered in good condition by a United States citizen for the port of destination or an intermediate port unless the vessel has no suitable space or accommodations for the freight or cargo offered. Although the bill does not contain this section we would deem it appropriate to include it. If we can provide further information we shall be happy to do so upon your request. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there would be no objection to the submission of this letter from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, JOHN HARLLEE, Chairman. FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION, March 31, 1966. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Dear MR. CHAIRMAN: The Federal Maritime Commission is pleased to offer its comments and views on the draft of the Merchant Marine Act of 1966, submitted by your Committee. The Commission believes the draft has a meritorious objective and has been, in the main, rationally organized into a comprehensive code of maritime law. Our substantive views and comments on the draft are confined to its treatment of laws affecting the Federal Maritime Commission. Enactment of the Merchant Marine Act of 1966, in its present form would embrace into a single statute legislation, affecting inter alia, promotional functions and activities exercised by the Maritime Administration and the domestic and foreign commerce regulatory functions and activities exercised by the Federal Maritime Commission. However, Section 1101 of Title I, Policy and Organization, while spelling out promotional policy, nowhere mentions policy concerning domestic and foreign commerce regulated under the Shipping Act, 1916, as amended. We note that the policy statement of the draft is identical with the Declaration of Policy of the Merchant Marine Sales Act of 1946, which in no way affected the functions and activities now within the purview of the Federal Maritime Commission. The Commission presently is under the mandate of the residual policy statement contained in the preamble to the Shipping Act, 1916, to wit, "to regulate carriers by water engaged in the foreign and interstate commerce of the United States, and for other purposes." Inclusion of the 1916 Act as it pertains to the Federal Maritime Commission under the policy statement of Section 1101, may work a change in law by construction and application in a way that places the Federal Maritime Commission under an active mandate to promote the United States Merchant Marine. This has not heretofore been the case. Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961 (75 Stat. 840) clearly removed the Federal Maritime Commission from nonregulatory promotional functions such as subsidies, shipbuilding, and the like. However, this is not to say that the Commission is disinterested in promoting the foreign commerce of the United States. It is implicit in the purpose of the Shipping Act, 1916 that one of the functions of this Commission is to protect the United States Merchant Marine from predatory and otherwise unlawful competitive practices, and thus the Commission's functions are "promotional" in that sense. The Federal Maritime Commission acting as an independent quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial administrative agency must, of necessity, conduct its activities on an independent and nondiscriminatory basis, otherwise its administrative process may be rendered nugatory. The Commission regulates the activities of foreign and domestic carriers and, therefore, domestic merchant marine promotional policy is a contradiction to the Commission's role. Additionally, the interests of the United States ports, exporters and importers, among others, are of concern to the Federal Maritime Commission under the mandate of the 1916 Act. The Commission is, therefore, concerned with the omission of specific reference of policy affecting these interests in Section 1101, which may result in doubt being cast on the role of these interests in shaping regulatory policy. For the foregoing reasons, the Federal Maritime Commission is opposed to the draft. Our position would be otherwise if, for example, the policy declaration of Section 1101 were amended to take into consideration our comments, or a separate and distinct Shipping Act, 1966, which would codify domestic and foreign_commerce regulations under an appropriate statement of policy, were created and annexed to the proposed draft. We recommend the latter. Our remaining comments deal with the substance of specific provisions of the draft. Section 2106(b) should be amended to delete the phrase "which ever is later" found in the last line of page 25 of the draft. The phrase has no meaning since the alternative, 30 days after enactment, has been deleted from the draft. Section 7104(a) is in part a duplication of the powers contained in part (b) of the section. It may be in order to delete part (a) since part (b) has all of the requisite provisions for the Commission's subpoena power. We concur in the editor's note on page 198 of the draft suggesting that sections 7150 (a) and (b) on immunity of witnesses be combined. We note in the draft a misquote from Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961. The editor's note on page 7 dealing with Section 103(a) of the Reorganization Plan states that all functions under sections "22-23" of the 1916 Act are transferred to the Commission. It should read sections "22-33." We also note, within the definition of Section 2101, the omission of the term "common carrier in intercoastal commerce" as used in Section 1 of the Intercoastal Shipping Act, 1933. Title II treats Rates, Agreements and Practices of Carriers and other Persons. Section 2101 of that title contains definitions "as used in this title" and it apparently was intended to include all definitions rather than have the individual sections within the title contain separate definitions pertaining to any term. In order that this theme be carried out, it would appear logical that the definitions presently included in certain of the other sections in Title II be eliminated from said sections and included in Section 2101. For instance, Section 2102(a)(2) includes the definition of the term "fighting ship." This should be eliminated from Section 2102 and included in Section 2101. Likewise, the definition of the term "softwood lumber" included in Section 2109(a) of the draft should be deleted from said section and included in Section 2101. Similarly, Section 2104(e) which is merely a definition of the term "contract shipper" should be eliminated in its entirety and the term included as a definition under Section 2101. Section 36 of the 1916 Act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to refuse clearance to a vessel destined for either a foreign or domestic port whenever he shall have sufficient reason to believe that that vessel has refused to accept or receive freight or cargo tendered in good condition by a United States citizen for the port of destination or an intermediate port unless the vessel has no suitable space or accommodations for the freight or cargo offered. The attached draft does not include this section in any of its titles. Sincerely yours, B-159377. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of June 7, 1966, requests our comments on S. 3446, a bill to consolidate and reenact certain of the shipping laws of the United States, and for other purposes. The purpose of the bill is to consolidate and reenact the various merchant marine laws including the related reorganization plans and public resolutions. Although a completely new organizational arrangement is proposed, no substantive change in the current laws is intended. We have not made a detailed sectional analysis of the bill in relation to the many statutory provisions which they would supersede. However, we have analyzed the sections of the bill which relate to functions of this Office and find that no changes have been effected, except that on line 18, page 63 (section 2207) the word "many" should be "may." Sincerely yours, FRANK H. WEITZEL, Assistant Comptroller General of the United States. |