the payment of reparations to the complain ant for injury caused by a violation of this Act." We further note that by reason of the specific provisions of Section 212 (b), requiring shipper adherence to tariff rates, U.S. shippers will be subject to adjudicatory proceedings before the Commission for freight under-payments. This simply rights an one-sided imbalance which has existed since the agency assumed "overcharge" jurisdiction but declined the correlative jurisdiction over "undercharges" (even by way of set-off); and we support its inclusion. SEC. 215. PENALTIES. The phrase "opportunity for hearing" in subsection (a) may not necessarily be interpreted as the full, formal, evidentiary hearing which should be a prerequisite to the assessment of what are now extremely severe penalties. The words "opportunity for" should be deleted, words such as "evidentiary hearing" and/or "hearing on the record," should be added, to make it clear that the accused is entitled to a fair administrative hearing. We respectfully suggest that the sections of the Shipping Act, 1916 which are not to be repealed be specifically set forth in this Act. Otherwise there will be endless litigation on the subject. LATIN AMERICA/PACIFIC COAST STEAMSHIP CONFERENCE 417 MONTGOMERY STREET, SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94104 Telephone: (415) 392-4035. Cable Address: LATAMCO Please refer to our testimony which we had the privilege of delivering before your Committee on December 3rd in the afternoon. Due to an oversight of which we were unaware at the time, United States Lines advised us of its position that it wished to be disassociated from our testimony. We respectfully request that this letter be made part of the record. Rep. John M. Murphy U.S. House of Representatives Room 1334, Longworth House Office Bldg. Dear Mr. Chairman: As requested by Congressman McCloskey during hearings in Washington and New York on HR-4769, the International Traffic Committee has reviewed Title 111, Section 301, amending Title 1 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, with a view toward proposing an alternate to the implementation statement ("Sec. 102"). As it now appears in the Bill, the Secretary of Commerce is charged to ensure that United State flag vessels carry not less than forty percent of the foreign commerce of the United States through the vehicle of "appropriate commercial agreements with foreign nations". The language of this section makes no distinction between liner and bulk trades nor does it qualify the goal in terms of tonnage or value. Finally, it does not indicate whether the goal includes or excludes U.S. Government cargoes which are required to be carried in U.S. flag vessels. In the opinion of the Chamber, the section is too loosely stated to be meaningful and, at the same time, too firmly stated in terms of level of participation and timetable to be practical. We believe that the implementation statement should be divided into We do not consider ourselves competent to comment on the bulk area. With respect to implementation, we do not feel that the means, i.e., 'appropriate commercial agreements with foreign nations', should be spelled out. We would prefer language similar to that which we proposed be included in Title 1 with respect to shipbuilding to the following effect: Section 102. To achieve the national policy set forth in (1) (A) With respect to liner trades, to ensure that United Since a substantial part of the tonnage carried by U.S. flag liner vessels is U.S. Government cargo, it is a concern of the Chamber that the rates paid by the Government be fully compensatory to the U.S. flag merchant marine. To that end, the Chamber recommends inclusion of language in this section to the following effect: Section 102 (1) (B) All Government impelled cargo carried in U.S. We trust that the foregoing is fully responsive to the Committee's request. ADP: rr Very truly yours, credary A. D. Payne, Secretary International Traffic Committee New York Chamber of Commerce & Industry [Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] OMNIBUS MARITIME BILL FRIDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1979 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE, COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT Marine and FISHERIES, Baltimore, Md. The subcommittee met at 9:50 a.m., in the Constellation Room, The World Trade Center, Baltimore, Md., Hon. John M. Murphy (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Murphy and Mikulski. Staff present: Larry O'Brien, Carl Perian, Gerald Seifert, Jack Sands, Taddy McAllister, Barbara Fox, Paris Russell. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. I want to thank my distinguished colleague, Barbara Mikulski, for suggesting that the Committee on Merchant Marine come to Baltimore, one of the preeminent ports of the United States, for a hearing on the omnibus maritime bill. This will be about our 22d hearing on this bill. It is a very comprehensive look at all of our maritime legislation, with the eye, of course, toward trying to preserve what is left of the American-flag merchant marine, and trying to set the Federal policies for the eighties and the nineties, for the rest of this century. We are a country that generates 25 percent of the world's commerce, and yet we carry less than 5 percent of our own commerce in our own ships. I went to the city of Delaware, the Port of Delaware, not too long ago, and I toured the port facilities and then went to a dinner where their Port Society was formed; it was the first meeting of that Port Society. I asked them how many American-flag ships were in the port at the time. Of course, they did not know. No one was aware of an American-flag ship, and they were not aware of the fact that there was difficulty in the American-flag merchant marine. All they were interested in was moving their goods at the lowest possible rate and service, of course, was not too important. It was a specialized service in that port, being a relatively small port, unlike this port here. So Barbara, we are pleased to be here. We can get more done in a hearing in a city like New York or Baltimore than we can in 5 days of hearings in Washington, because of the ability we have to concentrate on the issues, and also the quality of witnesses in a city such as this many times is far better, because many business people will not take time to go to a congressional hearing in Washington, but if we come to their city, they will come over and give us the benefit of their experience for a short period of time. |