Mr. LENNON. On the public vessels of the Navy? Is a Navy vessel a public vessel in that sense that this bill is written?

Admiral MCMANUS. I believe that is correct, Mr. Congressman. I may be in error in the interpretation. I do want to go further and say that the MSTS vessels on which the military serve are also considered public vessels in the sense of the language used in the proposed bill. Mr. LENNON. That is the conclusion you reached after conferring with legal counsel, I guess.

Admiral McMANUS. Yes, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. LENNON. That is the practical illustration, the way you have military serving on what is in essence a military in the public connotation?

Admiral MCMANUS. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. Would there be any other instances in which you could construe military personnel serving on public vessels? Give us the definition of "public," if you will, as you construe it. Is that commercial or does that mean public in which there is a formal definition under the basic act?

Here is a definition that has been handed me under the Water Quality Improvement Act, title 1 of that act:

Public vessels means a vessel owned or bare boat chartered and operated by the United States or a State or political subdivision thereof or by foreign nations except when such vessel is engaged in commerce.

You can go all the way around to construe that. So under this definition, every vessel operated directly or indirectly under bare boat charter or contract or boat owned by the Navy or State or a political subdivision of a State would be subject to this act, I take it. Is that your views, counsel?

Mr. CORRADO. That is the definition of public vessel in the definitions section of the Water Quality Improvement Act, Mr. Lennon. However, public vessels are excluded from coverage under the oil pollution section of the Water Quality Act. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of subsection (6) attach civil penalties to persons in charge of, or owners and operators of vessels and a vessel is defined as every description of watercraft other than a public vessel. Subject (j) of section 13 of the Water Quality Act, the sewage section, provides for a civil penalty for any person who violates the act. However, the definition of person in the definition section specifies that person does not include "an individual on board a public vessel." Thus, it is clear that military personnel are not subject to the pollution and sewage sections of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970.

Mr. LENNON. If you exempt all of those, who do you have left? If you take all of those out, you certainly in equity have to take them all out. Then who do you have left that would be affected by this act? Just answer that question.

Mr. CORRADO. As far as public vessels are concerned, Mr. Lennon, I think you take all of the public vessels. As far as the military and States and subdivisions. I don't think they are commercial vessels, but commercial vessels would be included.

Mr. LENNON. Well, if a number of States have their own vessels, fishing, oceanography, or units of the State, universities have their own research vessels, they are public vessels, right?

But no military personnel as such?

Mr. CORRADO. No military as such.

Mr. LENNON. You are suggesting that the bill ought to be amended that would not make any military, regardless of what position they held or what type of vessel, should not be subject to the civil liability, or criminal liability, or monetary penalties. Is that your thought?

Admiral MCMANUS. That is the thought that is suggested. In that connection, Mr. Congressman, I am sure you appreciate that the military, utilizing the Uniform Code of the Military Justice as their internal regulatory authority and by custom attempt to maintain the discipline necessary to adhere to the rules and regulations that are promulgated.

Mr. LENNON. Let me ask this question. This bill, I think, was sent up by the administration through the Department of Transportation in March. Was there any dialog with the Department of Transportation, in which the Coast Guard is under their jurisdiction, with DOD and particularly the Navy in the formation of this bill that they sent to the Congress, in order to try to iron out and meet these situations that you just raised?

Admiral MCMANUS. Mr. Congressman, I am sorry I have no knowledge of that. I would be glad to provide a response for the record.

Mr. LENNON. In other words, so far as you know, the Navy knew nothing about this until this committee sent the bill, as it usually does through custom, to all probable or possible affected areas to get their reaction on it?

Admiral MCMANUS. I have no direct knowledge of that, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. CORRADO. The Coast Guard told me that the bill had been submitted to the Navy for their comments before we sent it out for a report.

Mr. LENNON. What was the Navy's comments prior to the time they sent it to us?

Mr. CORRADO. I don't know.

Mr. LENNON. I think we ought to have for the record a statement by the Coast Guard that they did confer with appropriate officials of the Navy, and ask them to insert in the record the response they got from the Navy before they sent the bill here. And then we would be faced with your testimony today, if that could have been ironed out. That is the point I am trying to make, the apparent lack of coordination and dialog between the affected agencies before the administration sends a bill up.

I will get to some other questions.

Admiral MCMANUS. Mr. Congressman, I am sorry if I left the impression that there may not have been dialog. Although I have no direct knowledge, I am convinced in my own mind from my association over the years with the Coast Guard that there was appropriate dialog between the Navy Department and the Coast Guard before the administration sent this forth. I have no direct knowledge of it. Mr. LENNON. I don't recall that that question was raised yesterday with Admiral Bender or anyone else connected with the Coast Guard as to whether or not this matter had been gone into indepth with the Navy before the Department of Transportation sent the bill up on March of this year. That is a question I think we ought to have answered for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Lennon.

(The following information was furnished in connection with the above testimony :)

The Department of Transportation did coordinate with the Department of Defense prior to sending up this bill. At that time, however, the specific question of exemption of military personnel from the penalty provisions was not discussed. On review of the question, it is considered that, as a practical matter, the Secretary of Transportation would not proceed under the authority of this section against military personnel or civil service seamen. Derelictions on the part of military personnel could be handled under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Derelictions on the part of civil seamen could be handled under Department of the Navy and civil service regulations applicable to civil service marine personnel. Accordingly, it is not now considered that a special exemption for military personnel or civil seamen from the penalty section of the bill is necessary.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Downing?

Mr. DOWNING. Admiral, I am pleased that you don't oppose this bill. I was under the impression from the newspaper that you were going to oppose it.

Admiral MCMANUS. Mr. Congressman, I think you may be one ahead of me. I didn't get to read the paper this morning.

Mr. DOWNING. Forgetting the penalty section for a minute, are you suggesting that the military vessels not be subject to statutory regulation regarding the control of anchorages?

Admiral MCMANUS. No, sir; I am not.

Mr. DOWNING. You are just saying to apply this civil and criminal penalty to the military would be destructive of morale?

Admiral MCMANUS. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOWNING. Yes.

Mr. LENNON. Admiral, I am thinking in terms of the outloading ammunition depots. I am thinking of Sunny Point Ammunition Depot on the Cape Fear River. You know something about its capacity and involvement. Those vessels generally are under the jurisdiction of the Military Transport Service or the Navy. Now, while you concede that the Coast Guard would have the right to control the anchorage and control the movement, if the people who commanded those vessels could thumb their noses at the Coast Guard under your proposed immunity from any civil or criminal penalty, just how would the Coast Guard be able to force its requirement that it did meet their requirements?

Mr. DOWNING. That is the question.

Mr. LENNON. I didn't mean to preempt your question, but I know what is happening in this particular outloading ammunition depot and I know the necessity for the Coast Guard, because the Navy is nowhere around. The nearest thing is Charleston, S.C. south and Norfolk and Newport News north. But the Coast Guard is right there controlling that river from the ocean bar to the inland port, 33 miles inland, on which this outloading ammunition depot is there with the highest bombs, explosives, and everything else.

Now, if you say that these military personnel will not be subject either to criminal penalties or civil penalties, how is the Coast Guard going to have the backup to enforce the requirement that it anchor

at certain places and that it meet certain safety precautions. You may have the answer. If you do, I want it for the record at this point.

Admiral MCMANUS. Mr. Congressman, my statement used the term "military personnel." I used it with foresight. The operations that you have discussed are conducted by civil service personnel and they are not military in the sense that I used the term, and I did not propose Mr. LENNON. Military are on the docks, sir. Admiral McMANUS. I stand corrected.

Mr. LENNON. At least I have seen them there and I have seen them give orders. So I just wonder how you could meet this problem if we made a general exclusion of military personnel, because this bill is related to docks, warehousing facilities, and everything else which are under the jurisdiction of the military at these ammunition out-loading depots.

That is the point that does give me some concern. I apologize to the gentleman from Virginia for taking so much time.

Mr. DOWNING. That is all right. You asked the question that I was going to ask. Of course, the military is subject to civilian penalties in other areas. For instance, military convoy traveling down the highway. Aren't they subject to State and city laws of the areas they pass through?

Admiral MCMANUS. They are subject to and obey the laws of the areas they pass through: yes, sir.

Mr. DOWNING. I quite agree with the Congressman from North Carolina. I think if we excluded the military, it would undoubtedly weaken the bill. On page 2 of your testimony, you say: "It is recommended that the following new subsection (b) be inserted after line 6 on page 2 of the bill."

Line 8 ends with the statement "In carrying out his responsibilities under this section, the Secretary may." This doesn't seem to fit. What bill were you referring to?

Admiral MCMANUS, I was referring to H.R. 15710, sir.

Mr. DOWNING. Now, that would fit in there.

Admiral McMANUS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DOWNING. You said this should not apply to foreign vessels in transit through straits. What straits are you referring to? You see, the bill is pretty limited. On page 3 of I.R. 17830, it limits it to the 50 States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territories and possessions of the United States and trust territories of the Pacific Islands. What straits are we talking about?

And then it goes on to read, section 3 on page 3, "This act does not apply to foreign vessels in transit through straits used for international navigation, nor is it to be applied in other territorial seas to hamper the right of innocent passage as recognized under the international law."

Don't you think that provision adequately provides for this section? Admiral MCMANUS. Mr. Congressman, under H.R. 17830, I think section 3, on page 3, does in fact adequately provide for innocent passage. I am concerned that United States as a leading maritime nation may inadvertently use language in one of our statutes that would tend to cloud the issue of innocent passage through straits and territorial waters, and it is on this basis that I made the recommendation that similar language be introduced in H.R. 15710.

Mr. DOWNING. I see. All right, I follow that. Now you go on to say: "With respect to the use of such authority, it should be understood that the depth of defense cannot support the allocation of assets for routine policing of territorial waters at the present expected funding levels."

What exactly do you mean by that? I didn't think that the DOD was going to finance any part of this bill other than the Coast Guard. Admiral MCMANUS. The bill provides that the Secretary, with the consent of the agency concerned, may use the personnel and facilities of any Federal or State agency to enforce the rules. The point that was made in my statement is that at the present expected funding levels, the Navy does not anticipate having excess assets available to be made routinely available to support the Coast Guard.

Mr. DOWNING. Then you go on to say on page 3, "In territorial waters of the United States where immediate action is required, or where representatives of the Coast Guard are not present, or not present in sufficient force to exercise effective control of shipping, the senior naval officer present in command of any naval force may control the anchorage or movement of any vessel," and so forth, "to the extent deemed necessary to insure the safety and security of his command." That is an interesting suggestion that I hadn't thought of. Do you have any idea in mind where that would apply and who is to decide as to whether the Coast Guard is there in adequate numbers to handle the situation?

Admiral MCMANUS. If I may, I would like to use three phrases. The bill talks to navigable waters, which encompasses both our inland waters and our territorial waters. The recommendation referred to territorial waters and not the inland water portion of the navigable waters.

I could visualize a situation where the movement or anchorage of vessels off the Dam Neck Firing Range, for example, might not be promptly policeable by the Coast Guard assets that happened to be in the area. And under such a circumstance, the senior naval commander would be given authority to control the movement and/or anchorage of the endangered vessel in that area.

Mr. DOWNING. But you have in that particular instance the headquarters of the Coast Guard district right there. Admiral MCMANUS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DOWNING. I would assume that the Coast Guard would be in sufficient numbers and would have authority to handle such a situation as that. I envision a conflict between the authority of the Navy and the authority of the Coast Guard, and that is what we want to eliminate. Admiral MCMANUS. I don't see the conflict situation, Mr. Congressman. This in effect is attempting to suggest that if, for any reason, the Coast Guard assets are not present or present in sufficient quantity, then these senior naval commanders would take those steps necessary to insure the safety and security of his command and not go beyond the safety and security of his command.

Mr. DOWNING. Admiral, there is much force behind this bill and the reason for it came from the U.S. Yancey. Are you familiar with that situation?

Admiral MCMANUS. Yes, sir; I am.