Odyssey Marine Article...
- Thread starter jeff k
- Start date
MORE AND BEYOND OSSY
Bronze Member
Can't argue that one.Jeff K said:
jeff k
Bronze Member
- #1,623
Thread Owner
The following was ammended to the Defense Bill, but don't know if it will be in the final version.
Mack (FL), Bilirakis (FL): Would make changes to the language of the Sunken Military Craft Act of H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Would clarify the language of the Sunken Military Craft Act to restore its original intent, and would specify that a sunken military craft would be defined as a vessel only when on military noncommercial service when it sank.
Update: The amendment passed the House today 227 to 193, but the Senate could kill it.
Mack (FL), Bilirakis (FL): Would make changes to the language of the Sunken Military Craft Act of H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Would clarify the language of the Sunken Military Craft Act to restore its original intent, and would specify that a sunken military craft would be defined as a vessel only when on military noncommercial service when it sank.
Update: The amendment passed the House today 227 to 193, but the Senate could kill it.
MORE AND BEYOND OSSY
Bronze Member
US law for US military craft, How would this apply to another country's vessel.Jeff K said:
Ossy
Au_Dreamers
Hero Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2010
- Messages
- 988
- Reaction score
- 671
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- back on the 1715!!
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Ossy from my understanding the technical aspect isn’t about it being or having become a military mission or if the ships were warships it is about whether (if the shipwreck is the Mercedes) the “shipwreck” was solely a sovereign warship or a warship engaging in commercial activity which would exclude it from sovereign immunity classification.
In Bank of the United States v. Planters Bank of Ga., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907 (1824), Chief Justice Marshall states:
It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it divests itself, so far as concerns the transactions of that company, of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to the level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted.‖
Case: 10-10318 Document: 01116024550 Page: 38
The Supreme Court went on to instruct the United States District Courts in how to decide questions of foreign sovereign immunity:
[W]hen a foreign government acts, not as regulator of a market, but in the manner of a private player within it, the foreign sovereign’s actions are ―commercial‖ within the meaning of the FSIA.... ecause the Act provides that the commercial character of an act is to be determined by reference to its ―nature‖ rather than its ―purpose‖ 28 U.S.C. §1603 (d), the question is not whether the foreign government is acting with a profit motive or instead with the aim of fulfilling uniquely sovereign objections. Rather, the issue is whether the particular actions that the foreign state performs (whatever the motive behind them) are the type of actions by which a private party
Case: 10-10318 Document: 01116024550 Page: 40 Nos. 10-10318-J and 10-10374-J 31
engages in ―trade and traffic or commerce.‖ Black’s Law Dictionary, 270 (6th Ed. 1990).
Weltover, 504 U.S. at 614.
In Honduras Aircraft Registry, Ltd. v. Gov’t of Honduras, 129 F.3d 543 (11th Cir. 1997), the Court discussed the Weltover decision and held that a ―foreign state loses its immunity if it engages in commercial activity . . . because then it is exercising the same powers that a private citizen might be exercising . . . [a] foreign state is commercially engaged when it acts like an ordinary private person, not like a sovereign, in the market.‖ 129 F.3d at 548. In Honduras, the government contracted for origination of a computer database allowing for Honduran aircraft registry. This contracting with private parties was held to be a ―commercial act‖ and the private parties were allowed to bring suit to enforce the contract. Honduras, 129 F.3d at 548. The Court held that . . . [a]ll of those underlying activities were commercial in nature and of the type negotiable among private parties.‖ Id. at 547.
The FSIA states that . . . ―[t]he commercial character of an activity
Case: 10-10318 Document: 01116024550 Page: 41 Nos. 10-10318-J and 10-10374-J 32
shall be determined by reference to the nature of the . . . act, rather than by reference to its purpose.‖ 28 U.S.C. §1603 (d). Weltover, 504 U.S. at 614.
In October of 1804, Spain was at peace and The MERCEDES was serving
as a commercial transport vessel for the Spanish Correos Maritimos (Maritime
Cargo Service). The ship was carrying goods for freight charges, and between 24
and 40 passengers for fares. Doc.138-31:9, 18-23(irir6,12&13); 138-64:7; 138-68;
179-2:5-6,8. The gun-decks of The MERCEDES had been reconfigured for her
final voyage to accommodate paying passengers and cargo, and many of the ship's
guns were actually dismantled or removed to make room for passenger cabins and
storage of passenger personal effects and cargo, further underscoring the peaceful
cargo-carrying voyage. In fact, the fighting ability of The MERCEDES was
hindered by the extensive cargo aboard. Doc.138-3 1 :20; 138-64: 12-13; 163-9:37.
The vast majority of the cargo aboard The MERCEDES, at the time of its
sinking, was privately owned and commercially shipped. Doc. 1 38- 31: 19.
By the Spanish government's own, contemporaneous estimate (in diplomatic
correspondence with the British government), over 75% of the cargo on The
MERCEDES was privately owned. Doc.138-31:19; 138-46:4-7. The cargo
manifest for The MERCEDES, as well as 173 separate receipts showing freight
charges paid and issued by a civilian silver master under the auspices of the
Customs authority (indicating their commercial nature), clearly indicate that at
least 75% of the cargo (measured by value) was privately owned. Doc.138-31:26-
28; 138-64: 12-13; 138-62; 232-3 (customs receipts showing private freight charges
paid); 232-4 (original & translation of bills); 232-5 (contemporary manifest).
Private merchants, having placed cargo on The MERCEDES in Spanish American
ports, were charged freight at the rate of 1 % of the declared value of their
consignments payable to the Correos Maritimos. Doc.138-31:19-20; 138-62:10.
For a spreadsheet showing private commercial versus official consignments on The
MERCEDES at the time of her sinking, see Doc.232-2.
In the aftermath of the sinking of The MERCEDES, Spain went on
diplomatic record to protest to the British government that The Mercedes was
carrying private cargo and passengers and, therefore, the British attack was an
unwarranted provocation. Doc.l38-46:6-7; 138:64:17,18. In its subsequent
Declaration of War with Britain, Spain expressed outrage at the attaek on The
MERCEDES because it was being used to transport passengers and cargo, not as a
warship. Doc. 1 3 1 -6:48. The Spanish government at the time took the position that
the private parties who lost property shipped aboard The MERCEDES and other
ships in the small fleet that accompanied her in 1804 were to be treated as private claimants, and their only recourse was to seek relief from the British government.
Doc.138-31:26-27; 179-2:15; 232-8.6 Even the Spanish government, as recently as
2006 (before it brought its claim in these proceedings), acknowledged that the
majority of The MERCEDES' cargo was "treasures and goods of private interests." Doc.232-6:10&15-16.
(See Odyssey’s Opening Brief, No. 10-10269-J at pages 9-10 where Odyssey demonstrates that Spain, in the Case: 10-10318 Document: 01116024550 Page: 42 Nos. 10-10318-J and 10-10374-J 33 aftermath of the sinking of the MERCEDES, protested to Britain that its attack was unwarranted because the vessel was being used to transport passengers; that the MERCEDES was not being used as a warship.)
Manifest that shows paid private merchandise being carried on the ships
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/8:2007cv00614/197978/138/76.html
In Bank of the United States v. Planters Bank of Ga., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907 (1824), Chief Justice Marshall states:
It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it divests itself, so far as concerns the transactions of that company, of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to the level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted.‖
Case: 10-10318 Document: 01116024550 Page: 38
The Supreme Court went on to instruct the United States District Courts in how to decide questions of foreign sovereign immunity:
[W]hen a foreign government acts, not as regulator of a market, but in the manner of a private player within it, the foreign sovereign’s actions are ―commercial‖ within the meaning of the FSIA.... ecause the Act provides that the commercial character of an act is to be determined by reference to its ―nature‖ rather than its ―purpose‖ 28 U.S.C. §1603 (d), the question is not whether the foreign government is acting with a profit motive or instead with the aim of fulfilling uniquely sovereign objections. Rather, the issue is whether the particular actions that the foreign state performs (whatever the motive behind them) are the type of actions by which a private party
Case: 10-10318 Document: 01116024550 Page: 40 Nos. 10-10318-J and 10-10374-J 31
engages in ―trade and traffic or commerce.‖ Black’s Law Dictionary, 270 (6th Ed. 1990).
Weltover, 504 U.S. at 614.
In Honduras Aircraft Registry, Ltd. v. Gov’t of Honduras, 129 F.3d 543 (11th Cir. 1997), the Court discussed the Weltover decision and held that a ―foreign state loses its immunity if it engages in commercial activity . . . because then it is exercising the same powers that a private citizen might be exercising . . . [a] foreign state is commercially engaged when it acts like an ordinary private person, not like a sovereign, in the market.‖ 129 F.3d at 548. In Honduras, the government contracted for origination of a computer database allowing for Honduran aircraft registry. This contracting with private parties was held to be a ―commercial act‖ and the private parties were allowed to bring suit to enforce the contract. Honduras, 129 F.3d at 548. The Court held that . . . [a]ll of those underlying activities were commercial in nature and of the type negotiable among private parties.‖ Id. at 547.
The FSIA states that . . . ―[t]he commercial character of an activity
Case: 10-10318 Document: 01116024550 Page: 41 Nos. 10-10318-J and 10-10374-J 32
shall be determined by reference to the nature of the . . . act, rather than by reference to its purpose.‖ 28 U.S.C. §1603 (d). Weltover, 504 U.S. at 614.
In October of 1804, Spain was at peace and The MERCEDES was serving
as a commercial transport vessel for the Spanish Correos Maritimos (Maritime
Cargo Service). The ship was carrying goods for freight charges, and between 24
and 40 passengers for fares. Doc.138-31:9, 18-23(irir6,12&13); 138-64:7; 138-68;
179-2:5-6,8. The gun-decks of The MERCEDES had been reconfigured for her
final voyage to accommodate paying passengers and cargo, and many of the ship's
guns were actually dismantled or removed to make room for passenger cabins and
storage of passenger personal effects and cargo, further underscoring the peaceful
cargo-carrying voyage. In fact, the fighting ability of The MERCEDES was
hindered by the extensive cargo aboard. Doc.138-3 1 :20; 138-64: 12-13; 163-9:37.
The vast majority of the cargo aboard The MERCEDES, at the time of its
sinking, was privately owned and commercially shipped. Doc. 1 38- 31: 19.
By the Spanish government's own, contemporaneous estimate (in diplomatic
correspondence with the British government), over 75% of the cargo on The
MERCEDES was privately owned. Doc.138-31:19; 138-46:4-7. The cargo
manifest for The MERCEDES, as well as 173 separate receipts showing freight
charges paid and issued by a civilian silver master under the auspices of the
Customs authority (indicating their commercial nature), clearly indicate that at
least 75% of the cargo (measured by value) was privately owned. Doc.138-31:26-
28; 138-64: 12-13; 138-62; 232-3 (customs receipts showing private freight charges
paid); 232-4 (original & translation of bills); 232-5 (contemporary manifest).
Private merchants, having placed cargo on The MERCEDES in Spanish American
ports, were charged freight at the rate of 1 % of the declared value of their
consignments payable to the Correos Maritimos. Doc.138-31:19-20; 138-62:10.
For a spreadsheet showing private commercial versus official consignments on The
MERCEDES at the time of her sinking, see Doc.232-2.
In the aftermath of the sinking of The MERCEDES, Spain went on
diplomatic record to protest to the British government that The Mercedes was
carrying private cargo and passengers and, therefore, the British attack was an
unwarranted provocation. Doc.l38-46:6-7; 138:64:17,18. In its subsequent
Declaration of War with Britain, Spain expressed outrage at the attaek on The
MERCEDES because it was being used to transport passengers and cargo, not as a
warship. Doc. 1 3 1 -6:48. The Spanish government at the time took the position that
the private parties who lost property shipped aboard The MERCEDES and other
ships in the small fleet that accompanied her in 1804 were to be treated as private claimants, and their only recourse was to seek relief from the British government.
Doc.138-31:26-27; 179-2:15; 232-8.6 Even the Spanish government, as recently as
2006 (before it brought its claim in these proceedings), acknowledged that the
majority of The MERCEDES' cargo was "treasures and goods of private interests." Doc.232-6:10&15-16.
(See Odyssey’s Opening Brief, No. 10-10269-J at pages 9-10 where Odyssey demonstrates that Spain, in the Case: 10-10318 Document: 01116024550 Page: 42 Nos. 10-10318-J and 10-10374-J 33 aftermath of the sinking of the MERCEDES, protested to Britain that its attack was unwarranted because the vessel was being used to transport passengers; that the MERCEDES was not being used as a warship.)
Manifest that shows paid private merchandise being carried on the ships
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/8:2007cv00614/197978/138/76.html
MORE AND BEYOND OSSY
Bronze Member
Au_Dreamers, Your argument is sound. It's nice to discus the issue without the " They raped and pillage
The bit I have Problem with is, they didn't get permission ! It showed on how quickly they got out with
the goods.
They did not afford Spain any respect with this. I hope both parties come out looking like winners.
You suggested that Spain should have gone the way of the Sussex deal, I agree completely
The US government know that Spain is a major Allie and trading partner thus it's support.
Ossy
The bit I have Problem with is, they didn't get permission ! It showed on how quickly they got out with
the goods.
They did not afford Spain any respect with this. I hope both parties come out looking like winners.
You suggested that Spain should have gone the way of the Sussex deal, I agree completely
The US government know that Spain is a major Allie and trading partner thus it's support.
Ossy
Vox veritas
Bronze Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,078
- Reaction score
- 273
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp said:
Hi "Don Jose".
Odyssey's lawyers surely have claimed in the courts of Law of the Sea
But one thing there is no doubt: in 1804 there were some treasures that were brought to England (and never returned). In 2007 was in Gibraltar-Florida.
Cheers VV
Vox veritas
Bronze Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,078
- Reaction score
- 273
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Re: Juno and Galga
A question for the experts: why in 2000 the Supreme Court agreed with Spain on the ownership of the Spanish Navy frigate Juno and Galga (vs. Sea Hunt Inc.) and now have so many problems with the Mercedes?
I am grateful to know your opinion.
Cheers VV
A question for the experts: why in 2000 the Supreme Court agreed with Spain on the ownership of the Spanish Navy frigate Juno and Galga (vs. Sea Hunt Inc.) and now have so many problems with the Mercedes?
I am grateful to know your opinion.
Cheers VV
Au_Dreamers
Hero Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2010
- Messages
- 988
- Reaction score
- 671
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- back on the 1715!!
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Re: Juno and Galga
Heading to bed, but if you want some reading material...
Possibly the legal team arguing the cases and/or the money to continue the fight and/or the Judge(s) involved?
I'd have to refresh my memory on the Seahunt details to give a more in depth answer.
Vox veritas said:
Heading to bed, but if you want some reading material...
Possibly the legal team arguing the cases and/or the money to continue the fight and/or the Judge(s) involved?
I'd have to refresh my memory on the Seahunt details to give a more in depth answer.
Vox veritas
Bronze Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,078
- Reaction score
- 273
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Re: Juno and Galga
Strange, very strange. There was a claim for some wrecks that were not where they say they were, and were recognized rights over something that does not exist or does not match. Why?
Au_Dreamers said:
Strange, very strange. There was a claim for some wrecks that were not where they say they were, and were recognized rights over something that does not exist or does not match. Why?
Au_Dreamers
Hero Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2010
- Messages
- 988
- Reaction score
- 671
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- back on the 1715!!
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Re: Juno and Galga
Yes it gets very bizarre. I lived in that area (Dover, Delaware) for 10 years+ about 27 years ago at the beginning of my adulthood and treasure hunting years and did some exploring down there. If you were interestred in that sort of stuff you knew of the La Galga controversy back then. The Juno "puzzle" was something that was a "dream" for me and my treasure hunting buddy. We never found Pirate Charlie Wilson's chests either....
Vox veritas said:
Yes it gets very bizarre. I lived in that area (Dover, Delaware) for 10 years+ about 27 years ago at the beginning of my adulthood and treasure hunting years and did some exploring down there. If you were interestred in that sort of stuff you knew of the La Galga controversy back then. The Juno "puzzle" was something that was a "dream" for me and my treasure hunting buddy. We never found Pirate Charlie Wilson's chests either....
ivan salis
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2007
- Messages
- 16,794
- Reaction score
- 3,811
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- callahan,fl
- 🏆 Honorable Mentions:
- 1
- Detector(s) used
- delta 4000 / ace 250 - used BH and many others too
the differance between the 2 cases are easy to explain
juno and la gagla were treasure ships in us controlled waters * the us wanted to "make good" with spain --due to us navy bases at rota spain * and operations at that time . --so they actually contacted spain and "told" them to file a case to "claim" the vessels -- the US govt in effect acted against it own citizens by doing so -- the US Govt put the "interest of a foreign govt" and the us military ahead of its own people's rights ( thus seahunter was sold out by the US govt)
the mercedes was in "international waters" -- and carrying what is clearly "commerical cargo" --not spain royal crown money. ---so its hard to "rig" this case .--unlike the juno and la gagla case.
juno and la gagla were treasure ships in us controlled waters * the us wanted to "make good" with spain --due to us navy bases at rota spain * and operations at that time . --so they actually contacted spain and "told" them to file a case to "claim" the vessels -- the US govt in effect acted against it own citizens by doing so -- the US Govt put the "interest of a foreign govt" and the us military ahead of its own people's rights ( thus seahunter was sold out by the US govt)
the mercedes was in "international waters" -- and carrying what is clearly "commerical cargo" --not spain royal crown money. ---so its hard to "rig" this case .--unlike the juno and la gagla case.
Au_Dreamers
Hero Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2010
- Messages
- 988
- Reaction score
- 671
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- back on the 1715!!
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Spain’s sovereignty warship claim is invalid on practically all “Spanish” wrecks as they carried commercial cargo all the time. I always get a bit of a chuckle when people start throwing around “historically important” shipwreck(s) because most of the ships were the tractor-trailers of early colonial America’s history. Very few of them were of historical importance.
Vox veritas
Bronze Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,078
- Reaction score
- 273
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
ivan salis said:the differance between the 2 cases are easy to explain
juno and la gagla were treasure ships in us controlled waters * the us wanted to "make good" with spain --due to us navy bases at rota spain * and operations at that time . --so they actually contacted spain and "told" them to file a case to "claim" the vessels -- the US govt in effect acted against it own citizens by doing so -- the US Govt put the "interest of a foreign govt" and the us military ahead of its own people's rights ( thus seahunter was sold out by the US govt)
the mercedes was in "international waters" -- and carrying what is clearly "commerical cargo" --not spain royal crown money. ---so its hard to "rig" this case .--unlike the juno and la gagla case.
International waters? Are you kidding?
jeff k
Bronze Member
- #1,636
Thread Owner
House discussion on Amendment 48...
Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Mack
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48
printed in House Report 112-88.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title X add the following:
SEC. __. SUNKEN MILITARY CRAFT.
Section 1408(3) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (10 U.S.C. 113 note)
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, that was'' before
``on military noncommercial service''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting a comma before ``that
was owned or operated''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mack) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is a mere
clarification of the Sunken Military Craft Act. The fundamental
objective of the Sunken Military Craft Act was to protect sunken United
States military vessels, aircraft and spacecraft. This technical
correction will make clear that the term ``sunken military craft'' will
only include vessels, warships, naval auxiliaries or other vessels on
military, noncommercial service at the time they were sunk.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for offering the amendment.
We are inclined to oppose the amendment on the following grounds: in
2005, Congress enacted the Sunken Military Craft Act and the principal
purpose of that law was to preserve U.S. sovereignty and Department of
Defense sovereignty over sunken vessels and abandoned aircraft and the
like for strategic and economic purposes, and also to protect the
remains and property of those who may have perished on those sunken
vessels.
It's my understanding that this amendment draws a distinction between
such vessels that were in noncommercial service versus commercial
service. And although I think I understand the justification for that
distinction, here is our concern with the consequence of that.
It is our understanding there is pending litigation between the
nation of Spain and a private venture over the disposition of rights to
a sunken vessel that at least at one time--I suppose the time it was
sunk--may have had some claim in the United States. I don't know if
that is the case. Our concern is that by taking statutory action here,
we may be in some way interfering with the outcome of that litigation
or the process of that litigation.
I would yield to my friend, the author of the amendment, to ask if
that is his intention.
Mr. MACK. The amendment is clearly to clarify that we are actually
talking about military craft as it is a military craft. In other words,
if it's involved in commercial activity, then it wouldn't be regarded
as military craft. So it's really to make the distinction, which is why
the act was put in place the first time, that it's not for commercial
craft--it may at one time have been--but it is for actual military
craft when they are sunk.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman's distinction
makes sense. We have spoken to the Navy about this, and the Navy's
objection is predicated upon its concern that there could be an impact
on the litigation that is pending that I made reference to and possibly
claims of other sovereign nations in similar situations.
So, reluctantly, we would be inclined to oppose the amendment, but
obviously be willing to discuss with the gentleman as time goes forward
ways that perhaps our concerns could be addressed. So for present
purposes, we would be in opposition to the amendment for the reasons
that I stated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MACK. I want to thank the gentleman for expressing his
reservations.
I would tell the gentleman and this body that I think it's clear that
the understanding of this act is to protect military craft that has
sunk; but when that military craft is no longer involved in the
military but now is used for commercial activities, then it's no longer
a military craft.
{time} 2030
So the purpose of this amendment is to clarify this distinction.
With that, Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. I think the intent
here is just to clarify what is military versus commercial. I hope that
I can get the support of the Members.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be postponed.
Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Mack
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48
printed in House Report 112-88.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title X add the following:
SEC. __. SUNKEN MILITARY CRAFT.
Section 1408(3) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (10 U.S.C. 113 note)
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, that was'' before
``on military noncommercial service''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting a comma before ``that
was owned or operated''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mack) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is a mere
clarification of the Sunken Military Craft Act. The fundamental
objective of the Sunken Military Craft Act was to protect sunken United
States military vessels, aircraft and spacecraft. This technical
correction will make clear that the term ``sunken military craft'' will
only include vessels, warships, naval auxiliaries or other vessels on
military, noncommercial service at the time they were sunk.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for offering the amendment.
We are inclined to oppose the amendment on the following grounds: in
2005, Congress enacted the Sunken Military Craft Act and the principal
purpose of that law was to preserve U.S. sovereignty and Department of
Defense sovereignty over sunken vessels and abandoned aircraft and the
like for strategic and economic purposes, and also to protect the
remains and property of those who may have perished on those sunken
vessels.
It's my understanding that this amendment draws a distinction between
such vessels that were in noncommercial service versus commercial
service. And although I think I understand the justification for that
distinction, here is our concern with the consequence of that.
It is our understanding there is pending litigation between the
nation of Spain and a private venture over the disposition of rights to
a sunken vessel that at least at one time--I suppose the time it was
sunk--may have had some claim in the United States. I don't know if
that is the case. Our concern is that by taking statutory action here,
we may be in some way interfering with the outcome of that litigation
or the process of that litigation.
I would yield to my friend, the author of the amendment, to ask if
that is his intention.
Mr. MACK. The amendment is clearly to clarify that we are actually
talking about military craft as it is a military craft. In other words,
if it's involved in commercial activity, then it wouldn't be regarded
as military craft. So it's really to make the distinction, which is why
the act was put in place the first time, that it's not for commercial
craft--it may at one time have been--but it is for actual military
craft when they are sunk.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman's distinction
makes sense. We have spoken to the Navy about this, and the Navy's
objection is predicated upon its concern that there could be an impact
on the litigation that is pending that I made reference to and possibly
claims of other sovereign nations in similar situations.
So, reluctantly, we would be inclined to oppose the amendment, but
obviously be willing to discuss with the gentleman as time goes forward
ways that perhaps our concerns could be addressed. So for present
purposes, we would be in opposition to the amendment for the reasons
that I stated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MACK. I want to thank the gentleman for expressing his
reservations.
I would tell the gentleman and this body that I think it's clear that
the understanding of this act is to protect military craft that has
sunk; but when that military craft is no longer involved in the
military but now is used for commercial activities, then it's no longer
a military craft.
{time} 2030
So the purpose of this amendment is to clarify this distinction.
With that, Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. I think the intent
here is just to clarify what is military versus commercial. I hope that
I can get the support of the Members.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be postponed.
MORE AND BEYOND OSSY
Bronze Member
Thanks Jeff, I gather Mr Mack works for OM. The act makes sense, but It may open up a can of worms with other country's and the US.
No US department is going to take OM side on this, they have more to loose than the supposed $500 million.
Ossy
No US department is going to take OM side on this, they have more to loose than the supposed $500 million.
Ossy
MORE AND BEYOND OSSY
Bronze Member
Claudio, I wish you would tell us what you know with out the cloak and dagger !!! Did you and some of your friends get cut out off the deal with Odyssey.Vox veritas said:ivan salis said:the differance between the 2 cases are easy to explain
juno and la gagla were treasure ships in us controlled waters * the us wanted to "make good" with spain --due to us navy bases at rota spain * and operations at that time . --so they actually contacted spain and "told" them to file a case to "claim" the vessels -- the US govt in effect acted against it own citizens by doing so -- the US Govt put the "interest of a foreign govt" and the us military ahead of its own people's rights ( thus seahunter was sold out by the US govt)
the mercedes was in "international waters" -- and carrying what is clearly "commerical cargo" --not spain royal crown money. ---so its hard to "rig" this case .--unlike the juno and la gagla case.
International waters? Are you kidding?
Ossy
Au_Dreamers
Hero Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2010
- Messages
- 988
- Reaction score
- 671
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- back on the 1715!!
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
So then do you gather that our other Congressman Mr. Andrews works for Spain?MORE AND BEYOND OSSY said:
MORE AND BEYOND OSSY
Bronze Member
Au_Dreamers said:
You missed the bit that the US is an Allie of Spain.Top Member Reactions
-
2963 -
2159 -
1324 -
1235 -
1022 -
895 -
876 -
857 -
713 -
641 -
641 -
608 -
604 -
580 -
537
Similar threads
