On the recordMay 25, 2011
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.
