Section 2 of the bill requires the issuance of a license by the Department of Commerce to foreign flag vessels engaged in cruises from United States ports. No such requirement is imposed on American flag ships similarly engaged. The Department considers that this distinction as between foreign flag vessels and American flag vessels when engaged in similar activities is an unreasonable discrimination against foreign flag vessels. Section 4 of the proposed bill establishes certain criteria which would effectively prohibit foreign flag vessels from engaging in the cruise business from American ports. Specifically, subsection C of Section 4 requires "substantial complicance" with standards required of vessels of American registry. No standards are set which would define the phrase "substantial compliance"; as a consequence, the vagueness of the language must certainly lead to a major problem of administration. Subsection D also establishes a vague criterion in that there is no standard by which it could be determined whether the "rates and practices" of foreign flag vessels would be prejudicial to the operation of United States vessels. The Department particularly objects to the terms of subsection E of paragraph 4 which would prevent foreign flag vessels from making cruises from American ports. It would be impossible, for example, for the Secretary of Commerce to find that the operation of a foreign cruise-ship from an American port was not "detrimental to the United States balance of payments." It may be equally impossible for the Secretary to find that the operation of such a cruise "meets the needs of United States commerce." The objections to S. 1351 set forth above do not mean that the Department of State is opposed in principle to appropriate legislation and regulation which would protect American passengers by assuring the responsibility of cruise operators to furnish reliable and satisfactory transportation. It is not believed however that the terms of the proposed legislation adequately meet this objective. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of August 17,1965, invites our comments on S. 2417, a bill to require operators of ocean cruises by water between the United States, its possessions and territories and foreign countries to file evidence of financial security and other information. We have no special information or knowledge that would assist in the consideration of S. 2417, and therefore have no comments to offer. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Reference is made to your request for a report on S. 2417, a bill "To require operators of ocean cruises by water between the United States, its possessions and territories and foreign countries to file evidence of financial security and other information." The bill does not appear to relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of this Department or to affect any matter upon which the Department would be in a position to give helpful information or advice. Accordingly, we have no comment to offer with respect to the merit of the bill. We welcome the opportunity to submit recommendations on any measure where possibly the activities of the Department may be involved, or where its experience may be of value. Sincerely yours, GEORGE E. ROBINSON, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Washington, D.C., May 5, 1966. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of April 21, 1966, invites our comments on S. 3250, a bill to establish minimum standards for passenger vessels and to require disclosure of construction details on passenger vessels. We have no special information or knowledge that would assist in the consideration of S. 3250, and therefore have no comments to offer. However, it is noted that the United States Code citation on line 4, page 1 should be "46 U.S.C. 369." Sincerely yours, FRANK H. WEITZEL, Assistant Comptroller General of the United States. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of April 21, 1966, invites our comments on S. 3251, a bill to repeal the laws authorizing limitation of shipowners' liability for peronal injury or death, to require evidence of adequate financial responsibility to pay judgments for personal injury or death, or to repay fares in the event of nonperformance of voyages, and for other purposes. We have no special information or knowledge that would assist in the consideration of S. 3251, and therefore have no comments to offer. Sincerely yours, FRANK H. WEITZEL, Assistant Comptroller General of the United States. FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In reference to your request of April 21, 1966 for the views of the Federal Maritime Commission with respect to S. 3250, a bill, "To establish minimum standards for passenger vessels and to require disclosure of construction details on passenger vessels", and S. 3251, a bill, "To repeal the laws authorizing limitation of shipowner's liability for personal injury or death, to require evidence of adequate financial responsibility to pay judgments for personal injury or death, or to repay fares in the event of nonperformance of voyages, and for other purposes", I am enclosing a copy of my testimony on the proposed bills given before your Committee on April 21, 1966. As indicated therein, the Commission supports the provisions of both S. 3250 and S. 3251. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on S. 3250, "To establish minimum standards for passenger vessels and to require disclosure of construction details on passenger vessels" and S. 3251, “To repeal the laws authorizing limitation of shipowners' liability for personal injury or death, to require evidence of adequate financial responsibility to pay judgments for personal injury or death, or to repay fares in the event of nonperformance of voyages, and for other purposes." S. 3250 and S. 3251 incorporate two drafts of legislation transmitted by this Department to the President of the Senate on April 19, 1966. The proposed legislation, which is explained in more detail in the letter of transmittal, was submitted in accordance with the President's statement in his Transportation Message of March 2, 1966, that we will submit legislation to improve safety measures and guarantees of financial responsibility on the part of owners and operators of passenger carrying vessels sailing from our ports. Accordingly, the Department strongly recommends favorable consideration of the bills. Prior to the submission of the draft legislation to the Congress, the Bureau of the Budget advised that its enactment would be consistent with the Administration's objectives. Sincerely yours, FRED B. SMITH, General Counsel. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I refer to your letter of April 21, 1966 requesting the comments of the Department of State on S. 3250, a bill "To establish minimum standards for passenger vessels and to require disclosure of construction details on passenger vessels ;" and S. 3251, a bill "To repeal the laws authorizing limitation of shipowners' liability for personal injury or death, to require evidence of adequate financial responsibility to pay judgments for personal injury or death, or to repay fares in event of nonperformance of voyages, and for other purposes." The Department of State participated in the discussions within the Administration which led to the development of the proposed legislation. At the hearings before your Committee on March 20, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Frank E. Loy testified in support of the proposals. The Department of State at the present time has nothing to add to Mr. Loy's statement and again recommends enactment of the two bills. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administra. tion's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, For the Secretary of State: DOUGLAS MACARTHUR II, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. The CHAIRMAN. With that we will begin with our first witness, the U.S. Congressman from the Sixth District of California, who is a member of the House Committee, and who has long had an interest in this matter. Congressman Mailliard, we will be glad to hear from you at this time. I understand the House issued a report on this matter. Was that report issued yesterday? STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. MAILLIARD, U.S. CONGRESSMAN FROM THE SIXTH DISTRICT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. MAILLIARD. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Do you cover that in your testimony? Mr. MAILLIARD. I brought some copies of the report so that the committee will have it. It will be a House document. The CHAIRMAN. It will be a good document for us, too. There will be a lot of information for us to follow in these hearings. Mr. MAILLIARD. It will be helpful. It was done by a committee of so-called experts for the House committee. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I might say to those people interested, and particularly to the press who are here, that we have copies of the two bills available if you want them, those who would be interested. Mr. MAILLIARD. Today you have before you several legislative proposals designed to provide financial responsibility or stricter safety requirements, or both, for foreign-flag passenger cruise ships operating out of U.S. ports. My interest in these and other earlier legislative proposals is well known. Perhaps not as well recognized is the source for my concern. This is perhaps best summarized in the words of the noted English writer, Francis Quarles, who once observed, and I quote: "Let the fear of a danger be a spur to prevent it; he that fears none gives advantage to the danger." Well, in 1964, I received the fear of a danger threatening the almost half million unsuspecting American citizens who annually patronize the many substandard foreign-flag passenger cruise ships operating out of U.S. ports. The occasion to which I refer was an ocean cruise aboard one of these foreign-flag cruise ships on which I took my own family. An American-flag passenger ship was not available at that time. Therefore, I found it necessary to book passage on a foreign-flag ship. In the various ports of call made during that ocean cruise 2 years ago, I took advantage of the opportunity to board and inspect other foreignflag cruise ships. It was a matter of personal curiosity to me owing to both my position on the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and my seafaring experience in the U.S. Navy. To my astonishment, I learned from my inspection that the vessel on which I was sailing with my family was probably the best of all. The vessel on which I and my family took that earlier ocean cruise was operating then under Italian registry as the MS Riviera Prima. She is perhaps now better known to the American public as the Norwegian-flag cruise ship, MS Viking Princess-the same cruise ship which, less than 2 weeks ago, caught fire during a Caribbean cruise requiring the passengers and crew to abandon it. This, then, was the personal experience which gave rise to my fear of a danger to American cruise passengers. It became to me a spur to try to prevent what portended to be and, in fact, proved to be a very real and grave threat to the lives of many American citizens. As a result, I introduced legislation in the House in January, and then a modified version in July of last year to require that foreign-flag cruise ships operating out of our ports adhere to stricter safety requirements and provide evidence of financial responsibility. I may say one of the bills listed on your notice of the hearings is your own bill, Mr. Chairman, S. 1351, which was identical to my January bill introduced in the House. If emulation is flattery, I appreciate the flattery. Unfortunately, the reaction of many, if not all, to my two earlier bills took the form of unfounded and misguided accusations of an attempt on my part to further the interests of American passenger ship operators and American seafaring labor organizations. This was only a very minor factor in the introduction of my proposed legislation. The primary and controlling motive was the safety of American passengers on these foreign-flag cruise ships. The CHAIRMAN. Congressman, the next paragraph of your statement is very important. Mr. MAILLIARD. I am quite aware that we lack sufficient Americanflag passengers ships at this time to satisfy fully the growing demands of cruise traffic generated from our shores. I am equally cognizant that if foreign-flag ships are too strictly regulated they will only be driven to operating out of neighboring foreign ports. But regulated they must be, and, if it serves to foster the American merchant marine, then I shall be proud to have contributed to this accomplishment. After all, if Congress does not look out for the well-being of our merchant marine, who is there to do so today? The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a very important paragraph. Mr. MAILLIARD. When our committee did hold hearings last August, the opposition to my legislation was polarized, producing, I must say, some very strange bedfellows. Confusing my motivation of prevention with the extinction of economic self-interest, foreign-flag passenger ship operators and sundry Caribbean trade associations unanimously opposed both my bills. Aiding and abetting these interests were no less than five agencies of the executive which also opposed my proposed legislation. The Maritime Administrator, for example, was representative of the several agency witnesses when he testified, and I quote: We have presumed that a part of the purpose of the bill is to make more traffic available to American-flag ships, * by driving out some foreign-flag ships, *** due to safety standards. We have no proposals at this time *** our view is that the safety standards now applicable to these ships are adequate. Recalling this apathy of the several agencies of the executive, I hope that this subcommittee does not encounter a similar attitude. Perhaps Presidential recognition of this cruise ship problem in the message on transportation submitted to the Congress on March 2 portends a more constructive attitude by the agencies of the executive before this subcommittee. |