be so read, this would be a result, we suggest, which was neither contemplated or considered by either of the Committees in Congress or the Maritime Commission itself. Even at best, the argument would appear to carry no further than an application of Section 214 to specific functions in the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, which were transferred to the Federal Maritime Commission. Since the conse quences of this increase in power are far-reaching and would embrace questions affecting our international relations, we believe the Committee should not decide in a compilation and revision the question of any extension of the Federal Maritime Commission's subpoena power. This should be the subject of a separate thorough and searching review including full opportunity to be heard by all parties who may be affected. Finally, we note that in adopting the language of Section 214 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, in place of Section 27, Shipping Act, 1916, the Bill changes and indeed may have weakened the authority of a court to enforce subpoenas which the Commission now can issue. Thus, Section 27 provides that subpoenas are enforceable under Section 29 of the Shipping Act, 1916, which covers the enforcement of Orders other than for payment of money. The language of Section 29 (now incorporated in the bill as Section 1401) is different than the language of Section 214 (b) (Section 1304 (b)). This change constitutes another reason why the question of the scope and extent of the Commission's subpoena power should be the subject of separate consideration and not resolved as part of a statutory consolidation. Section 1305.-This Section also makes a substantive change in the law covering the immunity of witnesses who appear before the Commission. Under Section 28 of the Shipping Act, 1916, persons obtain immunity automatically, whereas under Section 1305, it would have to be claimed. That this represents a change of substance is confirmed by the fact that the Federal Maritime Commission recently secured the introduction of H.R. 12628 and S. 2963 to amend Section 28 to accomplish the same purpose. Section 1404. This Section provides penalties for violations of the Commission's orders, rules or regulations. No such provision currently exists in the Shipping Act, 1916. Section 32 of the Shipping Act, 1916, provides only that whoever violates "any provision" of the Act (except where a different penalty is provided) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not to exceed $5,000. An attempt was made by the Federal Maritime Board in 1961 to amend the Shipping Act to include penalties for violations of orders, rules and regulations and was rejected. Senate Document 100, 87th Congress, 2nd Sess., Index to Legislative History of Steamship Conference/Dual Rate Law, p. 139. TITLE II-MERCHANT MARINE POLICY; FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Section 2101 (b). We recommend that Section 2101 (b) be changed by inserting either "this title and" or "Title II"immediately before the words "Title III. ... The purpose of the change is to make the declaration of policy set forth in the preceding paragraph applicable to Title II and thereby (1) assure that the Secre tary of Commerce, Maritime Administrator and other officials are clearly governed in all respects by the policy declaration and (2) provide that the substantive authority to make contracts given the Secretary of Commerce under Sec. 2207, the power to make investigations, studies, reports, and recommendations to Congress set forth in Sec. 2301 and the authority with respect to Mobile Trade Fairs, Sec. 2302, all be carried out in accordance with the over-all policy for the Merchant Marine set forth in Section 2101 (a). Section 2301 (d) (8).—In order to make sense and to bring the Section in conformity with the U.S. Code, the words "until such time as the Secretary" should be inserted immediately after the comma in line 18 at page 70. Section 2301 (e) (5).— 1. An "s" should be added to the word "recommendation" in line 11 at page 72. 2. Consistent with our earlier observations in respect to Section 2101(b), the language "to effectuate the purpose and policy of Titles III, IV, V and VI of this act" should include Title II in the enumeration. Section 2303.-This Section serves no substantive purpose and is simply a cross reference. As such, it appears to be a vestigial remainder of the other cross references which were deleted from the draft bill. TITLE IV-ACQUISITION, OPERATIONS, CHARTER, TRANSFER, MORTGAGE, AND Sections 4105(a), 4401 and Part D.-The Bill substitutes in Section 4105(a) the words "any officer or employee designated by the Secretary of the Treasury for that purpose" for the term "collector of the customs" found in the present Statute and in the Committee print. In Part D, however, the Bill still retains the term "collector of customs" throughout and Part D, Section 4401(a) provides that "'collector of customs' includes any officer or employee designated by the Secretary of the Treasury to carry out the functions referred to in this Part,". This in turn is the definition referred to in Section 2401 as Item (12). It makes no sense to designate by different terms the official who must record a bill of sale (under Section 4402) and the official who cannot record it until there has been filed with him a written declaration (Section 4015(a)), when that official is the same person. This is the creation of unnecessary confusion and we suggest that the same term be used throughout the Bill. We believe that considering the long and historic use of "collector of customs" and its brevity as a term it would be better to use it as done in Part D. The definition in Section 4401 (a) can then be applied also to Section 4105(a) by substituting in that Section the phrase "collector of customs, as defined in Section 4401(a)" in place of the phrase "any officer or employee designated by the Secretary of the Treasury for that purpose". Section 4201.-The only purpose of this Section is for cross reference. It serves no substantive purpose and we think as we have suggested with respect to similar Sections above that it should be deleted. TITLE V-MERCHANT MARINE PERSONNEL, EDUCATION AND TRAINING Section 5103.-The reference in line 9 at page 302 to the Section of the U.S. Code corresponding to Section 3709 of the Revised Statutes is incorrect. The correct Section is 41 USC 5, not 35. MARITIME LEGISLATION THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1966 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m. in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, the Honorable E. L. Bartlett presiding. Senator BARTLETT. The committee will be in order. The subcommittee meets this morning to hear testimony on S. 2600, a bill to prevent vessels built or rebuilt outside the United States or documented under foreign registry from carrying cargoes restricted to vessels of the United States. (The bill follows:) [S. 2600, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To prevent vessels built or rebuilt outside the United States or documented under foreign registry from carrying cargoes restricted to vessles of the United States Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2631 of title 10 of the United States Code is amended to read as follows: "§ 2631. Supplies: preference to United States vessels "Only vessles of the United States or belonging to the United States may be used in the transportation by sea of supplies bought for the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps. However, if the President finds that the freight charged by those vessels is excessive or otherwise unreasonable, contracts for transportation may be made as otherwise provided by law. Charges made for the transportation of those supplies by those vessels may not be higher than the charges made for transporting like goods for private persons. The term 'vessels of the United States or belonging to the United States' as used herein shall not be deemed to include any vessels which, subsequent to September 22, 1965, shall have been either (a) built outside the United States, (b) rebuilt outside the United States, or (c) documented under any foreign registry until such vessel shall have been documented under the laws of the United States for a period of three years. The terms 'built outside the United States' and 'rebuilt outside the United States' as used herein shall include the construction or alteration abroad of any major components of the hull or superstructure of the vessel." SEC. 2. Section 901 (b) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. 1241(b)), is amended by adding the following sentence at the end thereof: "The term 'rebuilding abroad' as used herein shall include the construction or alteration abroad of any major components of the hull or superstructure of the vessel." (The agency reports follow:) THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUson, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on S. 2600, "To prevent vessels built or rebuilt outside the United Staff counsel assigned to this hearing: William C. Foster. States or documented under foreign registry from carrying cargoes restricted to vessels of the United States". The proposed legislation would amend 10 U.S.C. 2631 to prohibit the use in carrying defense and military cargoes, of vessels built or rebuilt outside the United States or documented under foreign registry until such vessel shall have been documented under the laws of the United States for a period of three years. Since the proposed legislation relates primarily to matters within the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, the Treasury defers to the views of that agency. However, it is noted that the bill provides that the term "vessels of the United States or belonging to the United States" shall not be deemed to include any vessel built or rebuilt outside the United States or documented under foreign registry. Since this exception may conflict with section 911(4), title 46, United States Code, and the Customs Regulations which provide that the term "vessel of the United States" means any vessel documented under the laws of the United States, the Committee may wish to consider more suitable language. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of this report to your Committee. Sincerely yours, FRED B. SMITH, General Counsel. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSon, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of October 6, 1965, invited any comments that the General Services Administration may care to offer concerning S. 2600, 89th Congress, a bill "To prevent vessels built or rebuilt outside the United States or documented under foreign registry from carrying cargoes restricted to vessels of the United States." The purpose of the bill is to amend section 2631 of title 10 of the United States Code to provide that vessels which, subsequent to September 22, 1965, shall have been either (a) built outside the United States, (b) rebuilt outside the United States, or (c) documented under foreign registry and not documented under the laws of the United States for a period of three years, shall not be used in the transportation by sea of supplies bought for the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps. Since S. 2600 involves matters of primary concern to the Department of Defense, that department is in a better position to advise your Committee with respect to the merits of the proposed legislation than is the General Services Administration. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to your Committee. Sincerely yours, J. E. MOODY, Acting Administrator. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your letter of October 6, 1965, enclosing for comment a copy of S. 2600, a bill "To prevent vessels built or rebuilt outside the United States or documented under foreign registry from carrying cargoes restricted to vessels of the United States." Since the proposed legislation relates to matters which are primarily the responsibility of the Department of Defense, we would defer to the views of that Department on S. 2600. 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. Sincerely, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of October 6, 1965, for the views of the Federal Maritime Commission with respect to S. 2600, a bill "To prevent vessels built or rebuilt outside the United States or documented under foreign registry from carrying cargoes restricted to vessels of the United States." The proposed bill does not affect any of the functions of the Federal Maritime Commission, and we, therefore, defer substantive comment to agencies which are directly involved." 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, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired), Chairman. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on S. 2600, a bill "To prevent vessels built or rebuilt outside the United States or documented under foreign registry from carrying cargoes restricted to vessels of the United States." This bill has been examined, but since its subject matter does not directly affect the activities of the Department of Justice we would prefer not to offer any comment concerning it. Sincerely, RAMSEY CLARK, Deputy Attorney General. B-95832. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of October 6, 1965, invites our comments on S. 2600, a bill to prevent vessels built or rebuilt outside the United States or documented under foreign registry from carrying cargoes restricted to vessels of the United States. We have no special information or knowledge that would assist in the consideration of S. 2600, and therefore have no comments to offer. Sincerely yours, FRANK H. WEITZEL, Acting Comptroller General of the United States. |