The CHAIRMAN. I understand what the intent is. What is the fact? The fact is that it confers clear authority upon the President to issue regulations concerning this subject, and we do not say even parenthetically, "Mr. President, please don't issue any such regulations unless they conform to the rules adopted at the international convention." We give him clear and explicit authority to proclaim any regulations that he pleases within his constitutional limitations, of course, respecting this subject. And then we say in an aside, "Of course, we know he won't do it unless they are in agreement with the regulations proclaimed by the international convention."

Mr. HARRISON. As a legal proposition, I could not take issue with you on that.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Harrison, what is your purpose in wanting to avoid coming to Congress for approval? It is to avoid delay?

Mr. HARRISON. That is one of the reasons.

Mr. NELSON. Yet the admiral has already testified that it took the Department heads 2 years to approve these rules. Don't you think Congress could act a lot faster than that?

Mr. HARRISON. That is a rather difficult question to answer.

Mr. NELSON. Now the other question I want to ask you is this: You say this is the Treasury's bill?

Mr. HARRISON. It was originally drafted by the Treasury, but in the process through the various Government departments there were many changes made and the original bill is hardly recognizable as it was drafted the first time.

Mr. NELSON. Did you propose in these hearings that this committee consider all the regulations constituting an international convention?

Mr. HARRISON. I don't believe I understand.

Mr. Nelson. Do you want this committee to go over all of the regulations contained in the international convention and approve them one by one and then say to the President, "We approve these, but you can do anything you want to."? Do you get the point? Are we going to pass this bill without even considering the regulations contained therein?

Mr. HARRISON. That would be, of course, up to the committee. If the bill goes through the way it is drafted, it would not be necessary for the committee to consider the regulations.

Mr. NELSON. Then one of your purposes is to get the bill through without our considering the regulations?

Mr. HARRISON. No, sir; we do not want to avoid the committee or Congress' action if they wish to take it.

Mr. NELSON. Why wouldn't it be just as well if we passed the regulations as a bill, giving the President authority to proclaim that they become law upon the approval of the other nations necessary? Mr. HARRISON. That would, of course, render inapplicable our plan to obviate the necessity of coming to Congress every time a minor amendment is made.

Mr. NELSON. Well, now, tell me why you want to obviate the necessity of coming to Congress.

Mr. HARRISON. We just feel it would be a step that could be eliminated.

Mr. NELSON. We could eliminate Congress entirely.
The CHAIRMAN. Sometimes we almost have.

Mr. NELSON. Why do you think it should be eliminated? It could not be the delay on the basis of the admiral's testimony, except that you would have to put time for congressional action on top of the 2 years it would take the Department.

Mr. HARRISON. I would like to suggest that this particular language be made the subject of inquiry by the members of other Government department representatives who are here to testify; that perhaps they could justify better than I can this language. It did not represent the original language of the draft on the first bill.

Mr. NELSON. If they can do any better than you have, I will be surprised.

Mr. BONNER. May I ask you a question?

Did the first bill direct the President to proclaim regulations within the agreement of the international conference? There is no curb on the President's proclamation here. You certainly do not want him to go beyond the agreements of the international conference.

Mr. HARRISON. That is correct.

Mr. BONNER. Why did you not write that language in here? I ask you then, Was it in the first bill that you drafted?

Mr. HARRISON. It was in the first bill.

Mr. BONNER. Why was it taken out?

Mr. HARRISON. One of the reasons is that if the language contains a provision that the President can proclaim international rules pursuant to agreements with foreign countries after unanimity has been secured to the rules, that may lead to litigation as to when substantial unanimity was secured, and it was felt that it would offer an opportunity to litigate that issue, whereas, if the language was worded as it is now, that possibility would not come up.

Mr. BONNER. You would not want any proclamations or regulations that others did not have to live by, would you?

Mr. HARRISON. No, sir.

Mr. BONNER. Well, then, that is the reason I asked: Would not it be well to limit the scope of agreements of the International Conference? That is all you want.

Mr. HARRISON. I think that the Department of Justice representative could give further information on that point, Mr. Congressman. Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bonner has the floor.

Mr. BONNER. He cannot answer the question I asked. I think it is a fair question to ask, don't you?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BONNER. Did the Coast Guard collaborate in the drafting of the present bill?

Mr. HARRISON. We were in the picture.

Mr. BONNER. What was the discussion in the collaboration for the taking-out of that language?

Mr. HARRISON. I did not attend the conference.

Commander H. J. WEBB (United States Coast Guard). The discussions with other departments took many ramifications, Mr. Bonner, and I think in fairness to the Treasury Department these questions should be directed at the proponents of the changes which were made. Their representatives are here this morning, the Department of Justice in particular, and are, I am sure, prepared to support their reasons for making such changes.

Mr. BONNER. Did the Coast Guard acquiesce with the deletion of such a limitation?

Commander WEBB. I am afraid I would have to answer "no" to that question.

Mr. SHELLEY. Who is here from Justice? Ask them.

The CHAIRMAN. We will take them in their turn.

Mr. Weichel signified his desire to ask a question before you did, Mr. Nelson.

Mr. WEICHEL. Yes.

In answer to some previous questions you said it was desirable to give this authority to the President to make any kind of regulations with reference to the international agreement, or as to the future, and then you said that it would obviate coming to Congress. I know the departments would like to do away with Congress if they could, and are you advocating a change of the Constitution where the Congress is no longer the legislative body because it is going to be simpler to do whatever you feel like doing? Is that part of a general plan of all these departments that have agreed on this thing? Mr. HARRISON. I am sure it is not the plan of the Treasury Department.

Mr. WEICHEL. You acquiesced in it.

Mr. HARRISON. We acquiesced in this bill.

Mr. WEICHEL. You acquiesced in the principle of it.

Mr. HARRISON. In this particular instance, yes, sir. This bill was approved by the Budget Bureau; in other words, representatives of the various interested agencies presented their views to the Budget Bureau and it was approved there as representing the administration's bill.

Mr. WEICHEL. All the departments approved this idea of bypassing Congress and just giving the authority to the President?" Mr. HARRISON. They approved this bill as it is now drawn. Mr. WEICHEL. Sure.

Now, another thing, you say that the reason for giving authority under this International Conference, and giving him authority for the future, was as to the time it would go into agreement; I mean, as to the time the unanimity of agreement would go into effect. What objection is there to hearings and passage by the Congress as a matter of law of what Congress believes should be passed as a matter of law, and then, after they pass it, give the President just the simple naked authority as to when it should go into effect or when he can agree with the rest of the nations?

What is the objection to that outside of the fact it does not bypass Congress?

Mr. HARRISON. I am afraid I will have to defer to the Justice Department representative.

Mr. WEICHEL. You are the attorney for the Coast Guard and the Treasury? You are a lawyer, are you not?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WEICHEL. This is a legal question, and you are the counsel for the Coast Guard and Treasury. Do you say you can't answer it, or you do not want to answer it?

Mr. HARRISON. I am faced with the proposition that this is an administration bill.

Mr. WEICHEL. We do not care whether it is the administration's: or whose bill it is. I am not particular about that. I would like to have the facts. You mean you cannot answer under Executive order?

Mr. HARRISON. Would you repeat the question, again, please? (The reporter read the pending question.)

Mr. HARRISON. There should certainly be no legal objection to it.. Mr. WEICHEL. Is there any other kind of objection?

Mr. HARRISON. The reason for this policy

Mr. WEICHEL. The objection to Congress having anything to say is a matter of policy? Whose policy?

Mr. HARRISON. The original idea

Mr. WEICHEL. Whose policy is that against, all the executive branches of the Government that have a hand in this thing? Is it their policy to object to the Congress? That is what I want to know. Mr. HARRISON. I would not say so; no, sir.

Mr. WEICHEL. Whose policy is it?

Mr. HARRISON. It was just thought that this method

Mr. WEICHEL. Thought by whom?

Mr. HARRISON. By the agencies

Mr. WEICHEL. Name the agencies that participated in this, and said that it was against their policy.

Mr. HARRISON. Well, there was State, Justice

Mr. WEICHEL. I expect State would.

Mr. HARRISON. National Defense, Civil Aeronautics Board, Commerce, and Coast Guard.

Mr. WEICHEL. And all those are appointees of the President?
Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WEICHEL. And they just speak for him when they object to the policy of the Congress having anything to say. That is what you mean by administration policy?

The CHAIRMAN. That is a conclusion to be drawn by ourselves, not by Mr. Harrison, for whom they speak.

Mr. NELSON. Are the words "substantial unanimity" in the International Convention?

Mr. HARRISON. They are in the resolution which designated Great Britain as the secretariat. It provides that when substantial unanimity

Mr. NELSON. Are you quoting now?

Mr. HARRISON. No. I am trying to find it.

Mr. NELSON. Will you please quote it?

Mr. HARRISON. Here is the paragraph:

The Conference also had before it and used as a basis for discussion present international regulations for preventing collisions at sea. The Conference considered it desirable to revise these regulations, and accordingly approved the International Regulations for Preventing Collision at Sea in 1948, but decided not to annex the revised regulations to the International Regulations for the Convention of the Safety of Life at Sea in 1948.

Mr. NELSON. Is this a summary of the proceedings, or is it an actual resolution?

Mr. HARRISON. It is a copy of the resolution-no, it is a summary; I'm sorry.

Mr. NELSON. What I would like to get is the actual wording of the resolution of the Convention as to when this International Regulation

for Preventing Collisions at Sea should become effective. Do you have that with you?

Mr. HARRISON. I will be glad to get that for you. I do not have it available.

Mr. NELSON. I wish you would. If it does contain the expression "substantial unanimity" what can the President do to resolve that language so that he knows when he gets it?

Mr. HARRISON. The office at London makes that determination and informs all of the nations signatory to the Convention, and the rules are made effective 1 year subsequent to that date.

Mr. NELSON. To what date? You said you thought the President should have this power because you were afraid that if he did not, there would be some litigation about the words "substantial unanimity."

My question to you is, What can the President do even under this bill about resolving this meaning of those words?

Mr. HARRISON. In that situation he would be bound by the arrangement that was made at the International Conference such as what I just read here.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it the arrangement that the United Kingdom is to be the determining authority as to when substantial unanimity has been reached?

Mr. HARRISON. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. [Reading:]

The Conference invites the Government of the United Kingdom to forward the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1948, on to the other governments which have accepted the present International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea and also invites the Government of the United Kingdom, when substantial unanimity has been reached as to the acceptance of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1948, to fix a date on and after which the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1948, shall be applied by the governments, which have agreed to accept them. The Conference requests the Government of the United Kingdom to give not less than 1 year's notice of this date to the governments of all states.

Commander WEBB. That is a quote from the final act of the International Conference.

Mr. NELSON. That is a quote?

Commander WEBB. Yes.

Mr. Shelley?

Mr. SHELLEY. Mr. Harrison and Commander, I want to clear up one point and see if I understand it correctly. In the original draft of language for a bill as drafted by the Treasury Department and Coast Guard, the method was advanced of limiting the President's right to promulgate regulations to those in the changes from the International Conference, is that so?

Commander Webb. Yes, sir, that is substantially so. Authority would be granted only upon substantial agreement internationally. Mr. SHELLEY. And any new regulations that he promulgated would be authorized to the extent of that Conference action?

Commander WEBB. Only to the extent of such international agreement; yes, sir.

Mr. SHELLEY. Following that original draft, conferences were held between Treasury and Coast Guard representatives and representatives of other departments. Is that so?

Commander WEBB. Yes, sir. At least conferences were held at the direction of the Bureau of the Budget.