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, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman. FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION, March 31, 1966. Chairman, Committee on Commerce, 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 Com mission. 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 construc tion 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 promo tional 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 1 distinct Shipping Act, 1966, which would codify domestic and foreign comrce regulations under an appropriate statement of policy, were created and exed to the proposed draft. We recommend the latter. Our remaining comments deal with the substance of specific provisions of the ft. ection 2106(b) should be amended to delete the phrase "which ever is later" We concur in the editor's note on page 198 of the draft suggesting that sections e note in the draft a misquote from Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961. editor's note on page 7 dealing with Section 103(a) of the Reorganization 1 states that all functions under sections "22-23" of the 1916 Act are transed to the Commission. It should read sections "22-33." ́e also note, within the definition of Section 2101, the omission of the term tle II treats Rates, Agreements and Practices of Carriers and other Persons. JOHN HARLLEE, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired), Chairman. 377. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, WARREN G. MAGNUSON, an, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate. Washington, D.C., July 20, 1966. R MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of June 7, 1966, requests our comments on 6, a bill to consolidate and reenact certain of the shipping laws of the iStates, and for other purposes. purpose of the bill is to consolidate and reenact the various merchant have not made a detailed sectional analysis of the bill in relation to the FRANK H. WEITZEL, ----- UNIVERSITY OF MICHICABI 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 ap→ parently 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. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on S. 3446, a bill "To consolidate and reenact certain of the shipping laws of the United States, and for other purposes." 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, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, RAMSEY CLARK, Deputy Attorney General. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your request for comment on S. 3446, a bill "To consolidate and reenact certain of the shipping laws of the United States, and for other purposes," has been assigned to this Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon expressing the views of the Department of Defense. This bill would update and reorganize into a more orderly presentation the basic merchant marine policies and legislation of the United States. For greater technical accuracy, it is suggested that the words "navy yard," where appearing (including Sections 3103 (d), 3106(e), 3302 and 3313(a)), be changed to "naval shipyards." Also, in order to bring the wording of the bill in conformity with the responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of Defense under the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, the following changes should be made: Page 67, lines 21 and 22; page 84, line 19: For the words, "Navy Department", substitute the words, "Department of Defense." Page 85, line 1; page 86, line 5; page 90, lines 4 and 14; page 202, line 19: For the words, "Secretary of the Navy," substitute the words, "Secretary of Defense or his designee." Subject to the foregoing comments, the Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of Defense, interposes no objection to the enactment of S. 3446. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report on S. 3446 for the consideration of the Committee. Sincerely yours, M. K. DISNEY, (For the Secretary of the Navy). ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Atomic Energy Commission is pleased to have been afforded the opportunity to comment on S. 3446, a bill “(t)o consolidate and reenact certain of the shipping laws of the United States and for other purposes.' Since the changes in existing law proposed by the bill do not appear to affect the AEC, we have no substantive comments on the bill. We do note, however, typographical errors in Section 7105(b)(2) of the bill amending the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The references in this |