JAN LIGA May 10, 1949.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. WALTER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 4186] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4186) for the relief of Jan Liga, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill do pass. The amendments are as follows: On page 1, lines 3 and 4, strike out the following language: "notwithstanding the provisions of section 165.3 (a) (3) (ii), title 8, Code of Federal Regulations,". Add a new section 2 to read: SEC. 2. Upon the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper quota-control officer to deduct one number from the quota for Czechoslovakia for the first year that such quota number is available. PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of the bill is to admit into the United States for permanent residence a native and citizen of Czechoslovakia who arrived at the port of New York, N. Y., with a nonquota immigration visa 7 days after he passed his 21st birthday. GENERAL INFORMATION Under the provisions of section 4 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended (8 U. S. C. 204), the term "nonquota immigrant" means an immigrant who is the unmarried child under 21 years of age, or the wife or the husband of a citizen of the United States, et cetera. The beneficiary of this bill, Jan Liga, a native and citizen of Czechoslovakia, is the son of an American citizen who was naturalized in 1937 and who lives and is gainfully employed in New York, N. Y. The father of young Jan Liga, whose one daughter is also a naturalized citizen, filed a regular petition in which he applied for a nonquota visa for his two younger children, born in 1930 and 1928, respectively. After some delay, the two nonquota visas were issued pursuant to the provisions of the above-cited part of section 4 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended. Mr. Liga's younger son, being unmarried and under 21 years of age, was admitted for permanent residence, while the older boy, who is the beneficiary of this bill, was refused admission on the ground that he had passed his 21st birthday on January 16, 1949, while he arrived at the port of New York, N. Y., on January 24, 1949, and was, therefore, not entitled to a nonquota immigration visa. The following letter, addressed to the author of the bill, Representative Gwinn, was submitted to the attention of a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Hon. RALPH W. GWINN, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CONGRESSMAN; I wish to refer to my letter to you of March 11, 1949, with respect to the immigration status of Mr. Liga. I wish to advise that on March 18, 1949, the Board of Immigration Appeals found it necessary to dismiss the appeal which he took from the order of the Immigration and Naturalization Service excluding him from admission into the United States for permanent residence on the ground that when he arrived at the port of New York on January 24, 1949, he had passed his twenty-first birthday. Mr. Liga was issued a nonquota immigration visa under section 4 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1924, as the minor son of a United States citizen. Section 165.3 (a) (3) (ii), title 8, C. F. R., which became effective July 1, 1948, requires that a person in that category must arrive in the United States before passing his twenty-first birthday. The order of the Board also directed that the record be remanded to the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, for his consideration of the request that execution of the excluding order be deferred pending introduction and enactment of possible legislation for the relief of Mr. Liga. Sincerely, PEYTON FORD, After having considered the facts in the case, the committee has arrived at the conclusion that Jan Liga should be admitted into the United States as a quota immigrant and that, therefore, H. R. 4186, as amended, do pass. O CENTRAL BANK, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AS ASSIGNEE OF JOHN C. WILLIAMS, AN INDIVIDUAL OPERATING UNDER THE FICTITIOUS NAME AND TRADE STYLE OF CENTRAL MACHINE WORKS, OF OAKLAND, CALIF. MAY 10, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. JENNINGS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 1009] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1009) for the relief of Central Bank, a California corporation, as assignee of John C. Williams, an individual operating under the fictitious name and trade style of Central Machine Works, of Oakland, Calif., having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The amendment is as follows: Page 1, line 3, strike all after the enacting clause down to the colon in line 1, page 2, and insert in lieu thereof That the Navy Department be, and is hereby, authorized to waive compliance by the Central Bank, a California corporation, as assignee of John C. Williams, an individual operating under the fictitious name and trade style of Central Machine Works, of Oakland, California, with the requirement of article 5 (b) of the Navy Department, Bureau of Ships contract NObs-10824 that estimates of the cost of performing change orders be submitted within ten days of the receipt of such orders or within such further time as the naval inspector may allow in writing within said ten-day period. The purpose of the proposed legislation is that the Navy Department be, and hereby is, authorized to waive compliance by the Central Bank, a California corporation, as assignee of John C. Williams, an individual operating under the fictitious name and trade style of Central Machine Works, of Oakland, Calif., with the requirement of article 5 (b) of the Navy Department, Bureau of Ships contract NObs-10824 that estimates of the cost of performing change orders be submitted within 10 days of the receipt of such orders or within such further time as the naval inspector may allow in writing within said 10-day period. STATEMENT OF FACTS It appears that John C. Williams, an individual operating under the fictitious name and trade style of Central Machine Works, did shiprepair work under contract NObs-10824 for the Navy in the amount of $30,644.39; and the Comptroller General of the United States has ruled that John C. Williams, and hence Central Bank as assignee, cannot be paid for this work even though it was performed to the entire satisfaction of the Navy Department. The reason for the Comptroller General's ruling that the contractor cannot be paid is that he failed to comply with a requirement of the contract that when change orders were issued under it, the contractor should submit an estimate of the increased price within 10 days from the date of receipt of the change order. The late filing of the estimates is the only reason for rejection of the contractor's claim. The contract was a fixed-price form of ship-repair contract providing for the award of specific jobs on the basis of competitive bids submitted by contractors. The contract reserved to the Navy Department the right to make changes in the original plans and specifications, in which event the contractor is obligated to proceed at once with the performance of the work as changed, and provision is made for an equitable adjustment in the contract price. The contract provides that promptly upon receipt of a change order the contractor shall submit to the naval inspector an estimate of any delay and of any increase or decrease in the agreed price of performing the contract work resulting from such order. Unless such estimate shall have been submitted within 10 days of the receipt of such order, or within such further time as the naval inspector may allow in writing within said 10 day-period, no increase in the contract price will be made and the completion date will not be extended. The reason for the Central Machine Works' failure to submit the estimates within the 10-day period or to request an extension of time for such submission within such period was caused solely by rush of work and there was no intent to willfully disregard the requirements of the Government. There is attached herewith letters dated March 2, 1948, and November 8, 1947, by John C. Williams, which give a further explanation of this premise. The Navy Department in its report dated March 22, 1948, recommends the enactment of this bill in an amended form; therefore, the committee has amended the bill to conform with that recommendation and recommends favorable consideration of the bill as amended. Hon. EARL C. MICHENER, NAVY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill (H. R. 4517) for the relief of the Central Bank, a California corporation, as assignee of John C. Williams, an individual operating under a fictitious name and trade style of Central Machine Works, of Oakland, Calif., was referred by your committee to the Navy Department with request for a report thereon. The purpose of the proposed bill is to authorize and direct the Navy Department to receive, consider, and pay the claims, amounting to $30,644.39, of the Central Bank as assignee of John C. Williams, operating under the trade name of the Central Machine Works of Oakland, Calif., for work performed by the Central Machine Works under change orders issued under the current form of Bureau of Ships fixed-price repair contract, notwithstanding the failure of the Central Machine Works to submit estimates with respect to such change orders within the period allowed therefor by article 5 (b) of the Navy Department Bureau of Ships contract NObs-10824. Article 5 (b) of the contract in question provides as follows: "Promptly upon receipt of a change order, the Contractor shall submit to the Naval Inspector an estimate of any delay and of any increase or decrease in the agreed price of performing the contract work resulting from such order or in the Contractor's quoted price therefore if the question of price has been certified for determination as a dispute. Unless such estimate shall have been submitted within ten (10) days of the receipt of such order or within such further time as the Naval Inspector may allow in writing within said ten (10) day period, no increase in the contract price will be made, and the completion date will not be extended." This provision was inserted in repair contracts for the purpose of requiring contractors to submit estimates of the cost of performing change orders before final returned costs were available and was intended to avoid the vice of, and to comply with the statutory prohibition against, cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost systems of contracting. The Navy Department requested advice from the Comptroller General as to the propriety of making any payments to contractors for work performed under change orders on which estimates had not been submitted within the period prescribed by their contracts and he replied that there was no legal basis upon which such payments could be made. The Bureau of Ships, accordingly, denied each claim for such payment. Since the Navy Department has received the benefit of the work performed by the Central Machine Works and is unable to make any payment therefor, legislative authorization to make reasonable payment to them would seem to be fair and equitable. The Navy Department is of the opinion, however, that such legislation should do no more than place the contractor in the same position which he would have been had he complied with the provisions of article 5 (b) of his contract. and recommends that H. R. 4517 be so amended. A redraft of H. R. 4517 embodying the proposed amendment is enclosed for your consideration. Should H. R. 4517 be amended as recommended, the Navy Department would favor its enactment. The Department of the Navy has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. Respectfully yours, O. S. COLCLOUGH, Rear Admiral, United States Navy, Judge Advocate General of the Navy CENTRAL MACHINE WORKS, Subject: Central Machine Works bill for relief under Navy contract NObs-10824. CENTRAL BANK, Oakland, Calif. (Attention: Mr. C. W. Gano, Assistant Vice President.) GENTLEMEN: Reference is made to our letters dated November 6, 1947, and November 8, 1947, regarding the above subject matter. Again we wish to state that delay in filing the estimates of the work involved and performed under change orders was caused solely by rush of work, and Central Machine Works did not willfully disregard the requirements of the Government. Central Machine Works performed ship-repair work under the above contract for the Navy in the amount of $30,644.39, and the Comptroller General of the United States has ruled that Central Machine Works cannot be paid for this work even though it was performed to the entire satisfaction of the Navy Department, and the price therefor has been agreed upon with the Navy Department. A letter by the commander of the San Francisco Naval Shipyard to the Bureau of Ships stating that the work was done at the request of a duly authorized representative; that the work was done to the satisfaction of the Navy; and that cost thereof has been arrived at by agreement with the Central Machine Works, is |