« PreviousContinue »
on the Great Lakes, why not put that language in the bill as you just suggested!
Captain Lowe. Personally, I don't see any objections, but again, I don't consider myself an authority on that. Mr. LENNON. Thank you. Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Ray? Mr. Ray. No questions. Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Dorn? Mr. DORN. No questions. Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Nix! Mr. Nix. I have no questions. Mr. GARMATZ, Mr. Counsel?
Mr. DREWRY. Captain Lowe, on this point that Mr. Lennon has been discussing, has it been said that the reason that the bill does not spell out exactly what vessels are covered is because of difficulty in arriving at properly descriptive language, since Canada, for instance, does not have the distinction in the classification of vessels that we do of registered and enrolled vessels!
You mentioned the State systems and, as I understand you, the State systems apply to all registered vessels engaged in foreign trade, and there does not seem to be any problem in the States in classifying the vessels that are covered.
Captain Lowe. We have no problem, but of course in the States there is no treaty we have to consider with Canada in that respect on those waters of the various ports of the United States.
Mr. DREWRY. Therefore, it would not make any difference then how Turkey, for instance, classified their vessels that would come into New York; they would be in foreign trade, and under that alone it would be necessary to have a pilot?
Captain LowE. Any vessel running foreign cargo would be considered a vessel under registration and classified as such. That is the vessel, of course, that would be subject to pilotage.
Mr. Drewry. Generally speaking, do you see any real reason why it could not be stated clearly just what is meant ?
Captain Lowe. Excepting for that Canadian situation, which I say I am not up on, but otherwise my answer is “No."
Mr. DREWRY. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
We are interested in the pilotage of foreign ocean vessels in the waters of the United States. Why can we not spell out where pilotage should be required inside of the waters of the United States, so the question of Canada could not come into this thing.
My anxiety is to be sure that every foreign ocean-going vessel that comes into the waters of the United States, the Great Lakes or any part of the St. Lawrence Seaway, that we have jurisdiction over is required to have a licensed pilot, and I do not know for what reason the Department of State might recommend to the President.
Again I say what I have said before. The Congress is obligated under the Constitution to regulate foreign and interstate commerce; not the President, but the Congress. The business people of America are complaining all the time about the centralization of authority and a weak Congress. We have abrogated our authority and we find ourselves time and time again faced with the situation where the great
business people of America come to the Congress and say, “Now, listen; abrogate your constitutional authority to the President,” and come back to us later and say, “You have a weak
Congress. You have centralized all the powers in the Executive.” That is what the attitude today is.
Mr. OLIVER. You do not think the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would pass any opinion on this constitutional question?
Mr. LENNON. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce might be bitterly opposed. It depends on in whose economic unit it is. That is all.
Captain Lowe. As far as being a pilot, and as far as talking from the State system, I am in complete accord with what you said.
Mr. LENNON. I thought you would be as president of the American Pilots' Association and that you would not want a foreign oceangoing vessel to come into the waters of the United States in these restricted areas and not be required to have a licensed pilot.
Captain LOWE. Definitely.
Mr. LENNON. That is what I do not want. That is what I am afraid will happen if we do not put it in the bill.
Mr. ĜARMATZ. Any other questions?
Before adjourning, I wish to say that the committee has received a great number of telegrams and other communications from individuals and various organizations interested in the legislation and all but one of these have been in favor. They will all be listed into the record.
Is there any other business?
Mr. GARMATZ. It is Local No. 374–2, ILA-AFL-CIO, Greater Chicago area, Waukegan, Ill., to Grand Haven, Mich., Daniel F. Clausen, president, 20501 Kedzie Avenue, Olympia Field, Ill. .
It is a union organization.
I think the statement is generally somewhat like we had yesterday from Mr. Golden. It is along those lines.
Mr. OLIVER. I was just curious.
Mr. GARMATZ. Those in favor are: A. F. Smoger, Great Lakes licensed pilot, 728 19th Street, Two Harbors, Minn. A. P. Mangan, on behalf of Rea Lemon-Puritan Co., 1200 West 37th Street,
Chicago, Ill. The Cleveland Trencher Co., 20100 St. Clair Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, E. J.
Kysela, export manager. Harbors Department, Greater Muskegon Chamber of Commerce, Muskegon,
Mich. Muskegon Harbor Commission, Muskegon, Mich. Lederer Terminal Warehouse, Cleveland, Ohio. Exports Harshaw Chemical Co., Cleveland, Ohio, C. D. Newcomer, director. Associated Great Lakes Freight Conferences, Chicago, Ill., Raymond P. Degroote,
manager-secretary. Chicago Board of Trade, Chicago, Ill., J. S. Chartrand, vice president, trans
portation. Cleveland World Trade Association, 400 Union Commerce Building, Cleveland,
Ohio. American Great Lakes and Mediterranean East Bound Freight Conferences, Chicago, Ill., William H. Smith, secretary.
Also prior to closing, without objection, I will insert in the record the statement of Arthur W. Todd primarily in behalf of the Lincoln Electric Co., of Cleveland, and secondarily in his capacity as assistant secretary of the Council of Lake Erie Ports and chairman of the Great Lakes Ports Traffic Committee; a letter from Mr. Carl E. McDowell, executive vice president, American Institute of Marine Underwriters, to Mr. Bonner, chairman of the full committee, dated March 4, 1960; and a letter from Mr. John J. Mahoney, manager, Dominion Marine Association, dated March 8, 1960.
(Information referred to follows:)
LINCOLN ELECTRIC Co.
(Statement in Favor of H.R. 10593, by Arthur W. Todd, Cleveland, Ohio) This is a statement in favor of the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, primarily on behalf of the Lincoln Electric Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, and secondarily, as a matter of principle, in my capacity as assistant secretary of the Council of Lake Erie Ports and chairman of the Great Lakes Ports Traffic Committee.
My name is Arthur W. Todd. I have been employed by the Lincoln Electric Co. for 19 years, of which period I was manager of the traffic department for 6 years and director of purchase engineering, my present position, for 7. My other relevant positions are as stated.
The Lincoln Electric Co. is an Ohio corporation, located at 22801 St. Clair Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio. At this address, the location of its only plant, it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of electric arc welding equipment and supplies. In the course of its business it purchases and consumes about 15,000 tons a year of ores which are generally obtained from foreign sources, and is a potential importer of larger amounts, the majority of which do or can move via the St. Lawrence Seaway. It also enjoys a very substantial sales volume and profit in various foreign operations, frequently involving the shipment of machinery, partially fabricated parts, and completed products to the extent of 10,000 tons or more per year, much of which may also move via the seaway. The company is thus vitally interested in safe, economical transportation via the seaway.
The Council of Lake Erie Ports is a voluntary association of port directors, terminal operators, and other interested persons located on Lake Erie, joined together for the purpose of promoting the development of commerce to and from such ports via the seaway. Informal discussions at past meetings indicate that the members are in favor of the establishment of sound regulations and law with respect to pilotage on the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes Ports Traffic Committee is a voluntary association of the traffic officers of the ports and chambers of commerce of all the Great Lakes. It is interested, among other things, in measures which will preserve or increase the economy to shippers in movement by water over, into, and out of the Great Lakes.
I have actively been engaged in the presentation of statements to the Houses of Congress of the United States with respect to pilotage bills since the concept was first introduced several years ago, and have made a number of statements to the committees concerned, generally in opposition to the type of bill repre sented by H.R. 57. While it is not my purpose here to debate a bill not presently before this committee, I am obliged to observe that H.R. 57 is too rigid, too apt of an interpretation promoting a kind of labor monopoly of pilotage, and, ultimately, wholly lacking in sound provisions for the certification of "safe" pilots. In contrast, H.R. 10593 now before you has remedied these defects and included a number of other provisions which are constructive and helpful.
Specifically, the advantages of this bill as to which I would like to call your attention are as follows:
Section 2(c): A “United States registered pilot” is defined as one having an unlimited master's license. There can be no doubt of competency under this standard.
Section 2(e) permits the identification of an officer, not a pilot, who will have qualification for navigation on the Great Lakes while still a member of the normal complement of the vessel. This obviates the use of a pilot where the latter is not necessary yet provides for safe operation in open waters.
Section 3(a) permits the President from time to time to define the so-called congested waters without providing some inflexible standard by statute.
Section 3(c) and elsewhere provides for compatibility with Canadian regulations.
Section 4(a) and elsewhere avoids conflict with existing Coast Guard regulations.
Section 4(e) provides for the formation of pilot pools to assure satisfactory service.
Section 5(a) permits the Secretary to establish rates and like regulations, thus avoiding possible impact of “monopoly" conditions.
Section 8 permits the waiver of pilotage under emergency conditions. Section 9(a) prohibits the superimposition of a system of local controls.
Section 9(b) and (c) avoids conflict with existing regulations whereby United States and Canadian vessels have been operated by properly qualified navigation officers in the past.
Section 10 provides for an advisory committee to assist the Secretary in the formulation of policy.
These clauses have been pointed out particularly because each constitutes a desirable, if indeed not necessary, improvement over any previously recommended bill.
To anticipate possible counterargument it may be urged that the pilotage problem should be solved by the creation of a commission by State compact, as has been done at various points on the seacoast. Such arrangements may be practical at the latter areas but would be difficult to accomplish, where so many States are involved, where there has been a somewhat conflicting tradition in navigation for a hundred years, and where close cooperation is required with Canada on an international rather than an interprovincial level.
It may also be urged that the rates of pilots should not be fixed by Government order. However, Government-set fees for pilotage are common in many waters, both adjacent to the United States and elsewhere. Further, there are enough variables chargeable to seaway operation at the present time without further handicapping the operators with additional charges of unknown level. Pilotage charges, like tolls, should be on a predictable basis.
I believe that the bill imposes fair and reasonable obligations upon the vessel operators in a way which will contribute to their safe operation and thus eventually to their economy of operation. This is a sound step in the development of trade on the seaway, which will inure to the benefit of the Lincoln Electric Co. The provisions are compatible with the principles expressed at other times by the Council of Lake Erie Ports and the Great Lakes Ports Traffic Committee-which organizations have not had time to review and vote on this specific measure. I urge prompt adoption of the bill as written.
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MARINE UNDERWRITERS,
New York, N.Y., March 4, 1960. H.R. 10593. Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, Chairman, House of Representatives, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish
eries, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BONNER: The American Institute of Marine Underwriters, a trade association whose members are 130 domestic and foreign insurance companies writing insurance on vessels and cargoes in the United States, strongly urges the passage of H.R. 10593.
This bill which would, in our opinion, do much to promote the safety of life and property on the lakes, is a matter of vital interest to marine underwriters.
Consequent upon the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, we expect that many thousands of tons of ocean shipping will continue to enter and trade in the lakes, many of which have never entered the lakes before. Their masters and crews may not be familiar with the waters, with the weather conditions to be expected, nor with the “rules of the road” which are standard on and peculiar to the lakes. We believe that unless such vessels are required by law to carry either licensed Great Lakes pilots or deck officers qualified for Great Lakes navigation, we may well see an unprecedented number of marine casualties in the area.
As marine underwriters, we have been and shall be called upon to pay many of the claims arising from such casualties. Therefore, in our own economic interest, and in furtherance of our efforts to secure the safety of life and property in waterborne commerce, the membership of the American Institute of Marine
Underwriters wishes to express its approval of this bill, and its hope and expecta-
CARL E. McDOWELL,
DOMINION MARINE ASSOCIATION,
Toronto, March 8, 1960. The COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, House of Representatives of the United States, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. (Attention Mr. W. B. Winfield, chief clerk).
DEAR SIR: We wish to thank you for notifying us of the hearings on proposed legislation concerning Great Lakes pilotage.
It is it not our intention to appear before the committee at this time nor to present a comprehensive written brief. We do however feel 'that the Dominion Marine Association should be placed on record as endorsing the re marks made on behalf of the Lake Carriers Association of the United States and which we understand will be similar to the remarks made by Vice Adm. Lyndon Spencer, president of the Lake Carriers Association, before a recent committee hearing dealing with an identical bill of the U.S. Senate.
In particular we wish to point out the urgent necessity for workable legislation in both the United States and Canada covering the matter of Great Lakes pilotage and to declare our support of any legislation designed to achieve that end. At the same time we must express our hope that such legislation will not result in a lowering of the standards of Great Lakes pilotage by encouraging the giving of certificates by either nation on the basis of less stringent requirements than those now used in judging the capabilities of Canadian and American personnel operating vessels in the Great Lakes area. Yours very truly,
JOHN J. MAHONEY. Mr. GARMATZ. The meeting is adjourned.
(Thereupon, at 11:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to call.)
(The following was furnished for insertion :)
STATEMENT OF CAPT. ANDREW MYSLAKOWSKI, ST. LAWRENCE RIVER PILOT
CONCERNING H.R. 10593
My name is Andrew Myslakowski, U.S. citizen (naturalized) age 42. I am an ex-Suez Canal pilot and I have been employed as such from September 1956 to the beginning of 1959. I left the service of Suez Canal Authority due to the persistent violating of the spirit and letter of contracts by the said authority, and generally hostile and unfair attitude on the part of Egyptian authorities toward American pilots.
I spent the navigational season of 1959 in the seaway as an observer pilot and passed the examination for pilotage on the St. Lawrence River between St. Regis and Cape Vincent, before U.S. Coast Guard.
I am a member of a pilot group affiliated with International Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots, Inc.
I respectfully suggest to the committee a change in the proposed bill H.R. 10593, which would in no way alter its essence or any major provisions.
In section 2, paragraph (c), line 3, after he world "unlimited master's license" insert: "Or chief mate's license; Providing, That such person has had at least 2 years' pilot's experience in Panama or Suez Canals."
In the way of explanation, I would like to point out that in both Panama and Suez Canals the unlimited master's license for pilots is mandatory.
I am the holder of U.S. chief mate's license and also unlimited master's license, issued by the Polish Government in Exile in London as of 1946.
I graduated from the Merchant Marine Academy in Poland in 1938, and ever since have been working in the trade. I have been hired by the Suez Canal on the basis of my foreign master's license, which is, however, invalid in the case of present legislation.