(b) The repeal of a law by this Act may not be construed as a legislative inference that the provision was or was not in effect before its repeal.

Senator HARTKE. Gentlemen, the first witness we have this morning is Mr. Henry G. Fischer, who is president of Pike & Fischer, Inc., of Washington, D.C.

Good morning, Mr. Fischer.

STATEMENT OF HENRY G. FISCHER, PRESIDENT, PIKE & FISHER,

INC.

Mr. FISCHER. Mr. Chairman, my name is Henry G. Fischer and I am president of Pike & Fischer, Inc., which has been working since the end of March 1965, under the supervision of Gerald B. Grinstein, chief counsel of the Senate Commerce Committee, and William C. Foster, staff counsel of the committee, on a consolidation of certain of the shipping laws of the United States.

When we started we were advised that the end result desired by this committee was a single maritime statute to take the place of the following laws: Shipping Act, 1916; Intercoastal Shipping Act, 1933; Merchant Marine Act, 1920; Merchant Marine Act, 1928; Ship Mortgage Act, 1920; Home Port of Vessels Act, Merchant Marine Act, 1936; Civilian Nautical Schools Acts, Maritime Academy Act, 1958; Merchant Ship Sales Act, 1946; Merchant Marine Medals Act, 1956; and, in addition, relevant reorganization plans and miscellaneous legislation related to the enumerated statutes, all as amended to date. We were also instructed to keep the consolidation free of any change in the substance of the laws being replaced.

The desirability of such a consolidated statute, within the prescribed limits, becomes self-evident when it is considered how many times since 1916 shipping laws have been enacted and amended which affect the same subject matter, some provisions overlapping and others becoming obsolete with the passage of time and the change in circumstances. Senator HARTKE. Let me say to Mr. Fischer, that is not peculiar to this legislation. That, unfortunately, seems to be peculiar to too much of our law at the present time.

Go right ahead, I do not want to interrupt you.

Mr. FISCHER. The fact that functions under the various statutes have been redistributed from time to time among the Government agencies by reorganization plans, the most recent in 1961, heightens the desirability of trying to organize these laws in one place in a way to make clear where such functions lie.

We delivered our draft of the consolidation to the chief counsel of this committee sometime around the end of the year 1965, and after consultation and some modification as a result, a committee print of that draft was circulated to interested persons, the shipping industry and the Government agencies involved with a request for comments. That committee print showed precisely what was being done in the proposed consolidation by the use of tables of distribution of prior laws, italic and brackets to indicate changes in language, and section notes describing the reasons for the proposed changes.

A substantial number of helpful comments were received, some among the more comprehensive being from the Department of Commerce; Federal Maritime Commission; Treasury Department; a committee of counsel appointed by the Committee of American Steamship Lines whose work was coordinated by Messrs. Odell Kominers, Ira L. Ewers, and Warner W. Gardner, chairman; Casey, Lane & Mittendorf and Burlingham, Underwood, Barron, Wright & White on behalf of about 20 conferences; the Pacific American Steamship Association; and the Maritime Administrative Bar Association. All the comments were studied. Where alternatives were suggested in organization or language, they became the subject of consultation with Mr. Grinstein and Mr. Foster, who made the necessary determinations. Sometime in April we delivered a second draft of the proposed consolidation incorporating the changes resulting from the comments. The differences between the bill introduced, S. 3446, and the committee print of the draft consolidation circulated in February reflect those changes.

S. 3446, a bill to enact the Merchant Marine Act of 1966, is organized into seven titles, the first of which deals with the functions of the Federal Maritime Commission and other aspects of the regulation of shipping in foreign commerce and in the domestic offshore trade. This title replaces most of the Shipping Act, 1916, and the Intercoastal Shipping Act, 1933.

Title II sets out the merchant marine policy of titles III to VI of the act, defines the functions of the Department of Commerce under those titles and provides authority for investigations, hearings, enforcements, and review in connection with actions taken by the Secretary of Commerce under the act.

Title III collects the provisions relating to subsidies and the construction, sale, and charter of subsidized vessels for essential trade routes. Almost all of these provisions now appear in the Merchant Marine Act, 1936.

Title IV deals with the acquisition, operation, transfer, mortgaging, and insurance of vessels. Part A, derived from the Shipping Act of 1916, affects the operation and transfer of privately owned or chartered vessels. Similar activities concerning vessels under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce are the subject matter of part B, replacing provisions mainly from the Merchant Marine Act, 1920; Merchant Marine Act, 1928; and Merchant Marine Act, 1936.

The Ship Sales Act of 1946, to the extent it is still in effect, the ship mortgage provisions of the 1920 act, the ship mortgage insurance provisions and war risk insurance provisions of the 1936 act, respectively, for the basis of other parts of this title.

Laws dealing with the U.S. Maritime Service, the Merchant Marine Academy, State maritime academies, civilian nautical schools,

and merchant marine medals are assembled in title V and miscellaneous provisions of a special character or having only temporary effect, mostly from the 1920 and 1936 acts, appear in title VI. Title VII is not a substantive title at all; it contains the provisions amending and repealing prior laws, rules of interpretation, and savings provisions.

By and large, the only changes that were made in the language of the provisions of law being replaced by the bill were those which are required by the fact of the consolidation, that is to say, eliminating obsolete language, changing cross-references, and updating the distribution of functions in accordance with the reorganization plans.

At a few points, for example in subsections 1208 (b) and (c), an attempt was made to change the phraseology of a provision solely for the purposes of clarification. And in a few instances, choices had to be made between overlapping provisions of different acts dealing in slightly different ways with the same subject matter.

Section 1304, concerning subpenas for Commission investigations and section 1305, concerning immunity of witnesses in Commission and court proceedings, are examples of provisions where such choices had to be made. In both cases, authority stems from the 1916 act and also from the 1936 act, the provisions overlapping but not quite identical. As now drafted, section 1304 reflects the provision from the 1936 act and section 1305 reflects a combination of the provisions from the 1916 act and the 1936 act.

To the extent these changes in language were made, it was our purpose, which we pursued with the greatest care at our command, to effect no change in the substance of existing laws, in accordance with the instructions we received when we began the work, and we sincerely hope we have been successful in doing so.

Senator HARTKE. In other words, Mr. Fischer, you made no attempt to deal with the substantive provisions, mostly with the procedural aspects and consolidation of laws; is that correct?

Mr. FISCHER. That is right; it was our purpose to avoid affecting the substance of any of the existing laws which are being replaced by this consolidation.

Senator HARTKE. Well, during your studies, did you see some areas in the substantive law which might warrant review?

Mr. FISCHER. Mr. Chairman, we did not concern ourselves with that problem at all.

Senator HARTKE. I see.

In regard to the procedural changes, were there any adverse interests, in your opinion, which felt that they were especially aggrieved as a result of these consolidations?

Mr. FISCHER. From the comments that were received, we got the impressions, Mr. Chairman, that by and large the industry and those people affected by the proposed consolidation felt that we pretty much had achieved the purpose of effecting the consolidation without in any way changing the substance of the law.

Some questions have been raised as to some of the choices that were made of overlapping provisions and we hope that those questions are resolved sometime early in the course of the progress of this bill through the legislative process, so that they can be taken care of and incorporated in the bill to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Senator HARTKE. Have you identified those in a separate memorandum?

Mr. FISCHER. As I understand it, there is a witness who will testify as to the principal one; namely, concerning the provisions about subpenas, 1304, which I mentioned in my statment.

Senator HARTKE. I wonder if you could, without too much difficulty, just by reference rather than incorporating it in the full hearing of this committee, give us a memorandum of what you consider the major areas in which you feel some additional action is necessary.

Mr. FISCHER. We will make an attempt to do so, Mr. Chairman. Senator HARTKE. Let me say to you I am not authorized to authorize any additional expense. [Laughter.]

Mr. FISCHER. We will be glad to make an attempt to do so.
Senator HARTKE. All right, fine.

What about the public? Did you find any areas in which you felt that possibly somebody from the public might possibly be adversely affected, as dinstinguished from the agencies themselves and the commercial interests?

Mr. FISCHER. Mr. Chairman, if we succeeded in doing our job properly, nobody would be affected by this consolidation because of any changes in any laws that now exist. It would be only in the event that somewhere we failed in doing what we set out to do that anyone would be affected one way or another, and to the extent that the proposed consolidation has been widely circulated and we have received comments, we have the feeling that, by and large, we succeeded in doing what we were instructed to do.

Senator HARTKE. I take it you would recommend, most highly, the passage of the bill then?

Mr. FISCHER. Yes, I think so, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HARTKE. Thank you, Mr. Fischer.

The next witness we will hear will be Rear Adm. Ralph K. James, U.S. Navy (retired), who is executive director of the Association of American Steamship Lines, Washington, D.C.

Good morning, sir.

STATEMENT OF RALPH K. JAMES, REAR ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY (RETIRED), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMITTEE OF AMERICAN STEAMSHIP LINES

Admiral JAMES. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to appear here today on behalf of the 13 members of the Committee of American Steamship Lines, to commend you, members of your committee, and staff for undertaking a codification of maritime. statutes.

As an aside, I might note that in the history of the Committee of American Steamship Lines (CASL), no shorter or briefer statement has ever been presented to a committee of Congress, because our position here is a very simple one, to explain, which I will continue to do.

Senator HARTKE. I might say so-you, Admiral, you know, there is an old statement-off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Admiral JAMES. Thank you, sir.

When the first draft of your proposed revisions became available early this year. CASL appointed a team of experienced maritime

attorneys to review the proposed codification. To our amazement these senior counsel, numbering almost a score, could find very little to criticize or to suggest in the way of revision of the excellent draft prepared by Pike & Fischer under contract with your committee.

Again, aside, I might note that we appointed from each of the member lines one of the house counsel and then placed in the position of a review panel the three gentlemen identified by Mr. Fischer earlier, old pros in the matter of maritime law, who did the final review of this entire undertaking.

Upon completion of our review, we did propose to you a number of relatively minor changes and improvements, the majority of which have been incorporated in the pending legislation.

It is our considered opinion that Senate 3446 successfully meets your objective that this codification should not in any way effect a substantive change in existing law.

Today we have a few further improvements to suggest with regard to S. 3446 as presently drafted. Our suggestions relate to what appear to be clerical omissions and clarification of language in order to avoid any misinterpretation of intent. Since these are primarily technical in nature, I will offer them for the record.

Our counsel, Mr. Robert Alsop, will be available tomorrow, if you desire, to discuss these further with your staff.

Admiral JAMES. Thank you, sir. In closing, I should simply like to repeat the congratulations of the entire CASL group upon the successful completion of this laborious and unglamorous, but important, undertaking. I am sure that S. 3446, when enacted, will provide a firm foundation for the improvement and expansion of our national maritime policy.

Thank you, sir.

Senator HARTKE. Thank you, sir. I do not even know of any questions I can ask you in view of that statement.

Admiral JAMES. Very good, sir.

Senator HARTKE. The next witness will be Mr. John R. Mahoney, of Casey, Lane & Mittendorf, New York City, representing various New York-based conferences.

Good morning, sir.

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. MAHONEY, FIRM OF CASEY, LANE & MITTENDORF; ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES D. MARSHALL, CHAIRMAN, ASSOCIATED LATIN AMERICAN FREIGHT CONFERENCES, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mr. MAHONEY. Good morning, Senator and Mr. Chairman. Senator HARTKE. We are always delighted here in Washington to receive visiting guests of the great city of New York, which is a subsidiary of the fine things which come from Washington.

Mr. MAHONEY. We feel we are third-party beneficiaries of all those fine things. We hope, Senator, that we may make some kind of s contribution to some of these fine things.

Senator HARTKE. Well, you certainly do.

I might say that frequently people from the European countries find it very difficult to acclimate themselves to a situation where there is a capital in the political fields which is separate and distinct from the other commercial interests throughout the United States.