It was largely as a result of such considerations that the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), an agency of the United Nations, was established in 1958. A principal adjunct of this organization is its Maritime Safety Committee which is constantly working toward the avoidance of conflicting standards and seeking to arrive at international agreement and understanding on safety matters. This committee, for example, is presently engaged in making recommendations with respect to "existing ships"; i.e., those built before the coming into effect of the 1948 safety convention. It would be most unfortunate if the United States, a leader in the promotion of international safety, were now to enact special and different standards for a small segment of passenger transportation which run counter to international conventions and to the objectives of IMCO. In conclusion, we should perhaps emphasize the distinctive qualities of the second Garmatz bill, H.R. 10327. This bill, in our judgment, succeeds in dealing directly with the problem of financial responsibility by regulating cruise operators of chartered tonnage, irrespective of nationality. The other bills do not reach the party responsible, since they would regulate only the vessel owner, in respect of whom no question has arisen. The second Garmatz bill, unlike the other two bills, avoids all the questions of discrimination and raises no international law or Constitutional questions. In our judgment, it could well serve a useful purpose in protecting the passenger against irresponsible cruise operators. Very truly yours, [Annex C] BURTON H. WHITE. U.S. expenses, account MS "Kungsholm,” 5 West Indies cruises, 19641 U.S. advertising and publicity $28,000 U.S. commissions paid to travel agents 90,000 U.S. office expenses, including salaries, pensions, rent, maintenance, 46. 12 U.S. gross income, account Kungsholm, 5 West Indies cruises------ $1, 021, 100 $18,000 1 The 5 cruises were: Sept. 30, 1964, 9 days, 2,929 miles: Oct. 10, 1964. 13 days. 4.636 miles: Oct. 24. 1964. 9 days, 2.929 miles; Nov. 4, 1964, 12 days, 4,089 miles; Nov. 17, 1964, 13 days. 4,097 miles. Mr. HARRIS. I would like now to ask Mr. White to make the few remarks he has, with your permission, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DOWNING. All right, Mr. White. You may proceed. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I have only a few observations to make on the subject of the authority and power to control and regulate the cruise traffic, the subject as to which Mr Mailliard in particular and some of the rest of you have been addressing some questions. It seems to me that the way to approach this problem is from the point of view of the international law questions which are involved and the impact of those questions on the proposed regulation here. The international law, as consistently supported by the United States, emphasizes the freedom of the seas, freedom of undiscriminatory access to ports. The exception to this is the exception of the coastwise laws, to which Mr. Ewers addressed himself yesterday. Mr. Ewers correctly described the coastwise laws as an exception to the general international obligations. However, the coast wise laws have their own limitations. The coastwise laws properly relate to the transportation of passengers, or of cargo, from one port to another port of the United States or of any other country relying on coast wise or cabotage laws. In every country that I know of, and I have made some research on this subject, the coastwise and cabotage laws have not been construed as applying to cruises where the passenger is brought back to the same port and where the cruise goes out into the international waters and touches foreign ports. That has been the consistent construction of the laws of the United States, and there is a very good reason for making the distinction. The coast wise and cabotage laws are adopted in the protection of purely domestic activities, that is, transportation of cargoes or persons from one port to another. It is precisely the same kind of regulation one would have with respect to competing methods of transportation, railroads or buses or trucks. No such a consideration prevails with respect to cruises. This limitation on coastwise laws, this construction of coastwise laws which has been universal, is the background of numerous treaties of friendship, commerce, and navigation, and it is my feeling that if the coastwise laws and the cabotage concept is extended in the novel and unprecedented way as three of these bills propose to do that you would inevitably run into conflict, not only with the existing traditions of international law but with specific treaty obligations in the treaties of friendship, commerce, and navigation. That is the theory upon which we predicate our position. We recognize, of course, that the Congress is in a position to deal with commerce. It is so authorized by our Constitution-but that does not authorize Congress to deal with commerce where it is precluded by treaty or international law. It is the same way as you have authority to deal with agriculture. No one can question that, but you cannot deal with agricultural problems arising outside of the United States. There is only one other point to which I need address myself, and that is the question of the importance of dealing with safety matters at the international level. This is a point which was developed by Mr. Miller of the Department of State. I think he was supported by the Coast Guard position. The United States has been one of the prime supporters of dealing with safety problems at this level. It has been a prime supporter of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention. It also has been the prime supporter of the International Maritime Consultative Organization, a specialized organization of the United Nations for the specific purpose of dealing with maritime problems, including safety, at the international level. The International Maritime Consultative Organization, or IMCO, as it is more commonly called, has as one of its principal adjuncts the Maritime Safety Committee where safety problems are being constantly dealt with on an international basis and where there is an effort to bring safety standards up to a common basis so that we can have to the greatest degree possible, no uncertainty or conflicts or disturbing elements flowing from the confusion of various laws. I do not think it requires any very great imagination to understand how that kind of confusion could arise, where a ship of one nation passes through the waters of a number of others in the course of a voyage, if each of the nations were to maintain and insist upon its own particular standards. What we have arrived at by the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, and at the IMCO level, is the definite and certain standards which have been agreed upon by all nations, which permit, as the Safety Convention provides and requires, that one signatory give effect to the certificate issued under the convention by another signatory unless it is purely apparent that the certificate was improperly issued or does not represent the then condition of the vessel." This is the position which the United States supported. I think it is a valid and necessary provision which cannot be dealt with lightly, and I feel that three of the pending bills would in effect result in the United States abandoning a position which it has so consistently and thoroughly supported over a considerable period of years. Thank you very much. Mr. DOWNING. Thank you, Mr. White. I have one question. In your research did you find any other country which had legislation similar to the bills proposed here? Mr. WHITE. I did not, sir. Mr. DOWNING. Does an American operator take his ship to Sweden and take a cruise trip to the North Cape and then go back to Sweden without Swedish regulation? Mr. WHITE. Yes. Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Mailliard? Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Harris, in our questions yesterday, we were reminded that a similar problem arose 30-odd years ago, and that to some extent it was solved by action outside of the legislative field. Frankly, as I interpret your statement, I think you are somewhat misconstruing my intentions in originating this legislation. I do not know every ship of every line for which you speak, but those that I do know I would expect would fully conform with the standards which are being sought here. Conceding that there are not very many violators, either with regard to the financial responsibility of the reasonable safety element, and conceding that Mr. Garmatz's most recent bill pretty well gets at the financial responsibility thing, although I think perhaps some modification of it might be in order, it is the safety question that is paramount in my mind. Secondly, there is the question of either selfregulation or Government regulation so as not to have any more chaos in this business than we have to have. The very fact that it has grown so rapidly, and promises to grow considerably more, means that whatever problems we have today will be far worse a year, two, or three from now, because I think we will attract more and more people who might be considered marginal operators in the field. I would like to find out what we are getting at. I know of no way to get at it by legislation unless we can assert jurisdiction, and I think this is a matter of checking the legislation and not the authority of the Congress in the field. I think we can do it without violation of international agreements, but I realize others have different opinions. Would you not concede that we do have ships in this trade which are so old that we cannot apply modern standards to them under international law? There are vessels in this trade which your own people would not consider to be adequate from a safety point of view? Mr. HARRIS. I think it was brought out rather clearly yesterday that the age did not necessarily affect seaworthiness. Mr. MAILLIARD. That is true, but the age of the ship does affect the standards required. Mr. HARRIS. All ships operating out of the United States do conform with the international convention under the rather rigorous inspection and control of the Coast Guard. Mr. MAILLIARD. Let us take the few ships before the 1929 convention went into effect. What standards can we apply there? Mr. HARRIS. All I can say is that I have no experience with those myself except that they are accepted by the Coast Guard. Mr. MAILLIARD. Yes; but under the convention the Coast Guard cannot require them to maintain the standards they can require of more recently built ships, if I understand it. Mr. HARRIS. In practice every operator has to take notice of the Coast Guard and that they are in the position to assure adequate standards. I think I must ask Mr. Burton White if he will give me the legal position on ships built before the convention came in. Mr. WHITE. Let me just point this out, Mr. Mailliard. I think there is a slight misconception when you assume there is no jurisdiction with respect to these old vessels. I call your particular attention to section 362 of title 46 which would give the Coast Guard the right to inspect or to accept certificates issued by the foreign state where the foreign state's laws are in substantial accordance with those of the United States. I think they must review the subject in light of that additional consideration, sir. Mr. MAILLIARD. That doesn't quite get at the problem I am discussing. As I understand the situation, and as I understood the testimony of the Coast Guard, where a vessel was built-let us take an extreme case-before the effective date of the convention of 1929, and before the effective date of the convention of 1948-if the nation whose flag the ship flies is a signatory we do not have the right to require that these vessels measure up to what would today be considered a modern standard of safety. If the nation is not a signatory we would be very severe and require them to maintain U.S. standards. As I understand it, there are certain provisions in the later conventions which are applicable to older vessels but they are rather limited in nature. If that is not a true statement of fact I wish you would straighten me out. Mr. WHITE. Sections 17 and 19 of the convention provide for issuance of certificates of compliance with the requirements of the convention and they provide for the acceptance of these certificates under the circumstances which I outlined to you a moment ago. However, it does not follow at all that where there are no SOLAS conventions applicable that no inspection is permissible. Mr. MAILLIARD. I say under our international agreements we cannot require them to maintain what would today be considered adequate standards. Mr. WHITE. As a matter of fact, I would think that where the SOLAS conventions did not apply the Coast Guard's jurisdiction would be accentuated more than otherwise because then they can have their own inspection unless they have a certificate of a nation "whose laws are substantially the same as those of the United States.” Mr. MAILLIARD. Either I am not making myself clear or you are evading my question. Mr. WHITE. I don't intend to evade your question. Mr. MAILLIARD. Is it not true, however, that the vessel of a signatory country built before the effective date of each convention does not have to comply with this convention? Mr. WHITE. That is correct, but that does not mean it does not have any safety standards. Mr. MAILLIARD. Not necessarily. Mr. WHITE. I think we agree on that. Mr. MAILLIARD. Not necessarily. In fact, I know this. Some ships have been substantially upgraded which were not required to do so by the international convention, but some have not been. These are the ones I am trying to get at. I will confess freely that the Lakonia incident made a very deep impression on me, and when you consider that this could just as easily have happened here as it could out of Great Britain, I felt we had some responsibility. Mr. WHITE. I am not prepared to go into the Lakonia incident with you. I have heard various stories about it. Some emphasized crew mismanagement and things of that type, structural details, but I am not prepared to deal with that point. I simply want to emphasize that the absence of SOLAS requirements does not mean by any means absence of any requirements because each of the States whose flag the vessels fly has its own controls, and in order to satisfy the Coast Guard any certificate issued by them has to be substantially the same as the United States. Mr. MAILLIARD. If that is correct then nobody has raised that point before. Mr. WHITE. I think it is unfortunate it has not been raised. Mr. MAILLIARD. I understand that is not correct. What provision can you cite? Mr. WHITE. I cited 362, 46 United States Code. Mr. MAILLIARD. Now you are talking about nonsignatory nations? |