I think I could tell you what the answer would be from the proponents of this idea, that after all, the Coast Guard is not interested in the economic aspects and therefore any decision they made would not be predicated upon the economic results insofar as shipping on the Great Lakes. I am quite sure that that would be the answer from Commerce on that point.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Lennon?

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Chairman.

Then I understand you to say that the action of the Secretary of Commerce on the question of suspension or a revocation of a pilot's license would be based on an economic aspect and not on the question of his competency as a pilot?

Admiral RICHMOND. That is correct.

The Department of Commerce agrees that insofar as the competency of the individual, they have no interest in that. Of course, as a condition precedent to registering that man, they will ask for his competency certificate from the Coast Guard.

Mr. LENNON. About the only basis on which the Secretary of Commerce then could either revoke or suspend would be where he abused his privilege with reference to rates charged?

Admiral RICHMOND. Rates or failure to respond to a call.

Since the regulations aren't written, I am only speculating, sir, but I mean anything that would be in violation, I would say, of whatever those regulations encompass.

Mr. LENNON. To sum it up, the Coast Guard is only interested in maritime safety?

Admiral RICHMOND. That is all, sir.

Mr. LENNON. Actually, under this bill that we are considering today, the Coast Guard has a lesser area of responsibility than it probably would have had under H.R. 57?

Admiral RICHMOND. No, sir; I don't feel this impinges on our responsibility one bit, sir.

Mr. LENNON. However, I said you have a lesser area of responsibility under this legislation than you probably would have had under H.R. 57?

Admiral RICHMOND. No; I can't agree with you on that, sir. I don't feel that the responsibility is any less under this bill than it would have been under H.R. 57. H.R. 57 would merely have made compulsory that any vessel entering the lakes have aboard a man who has been licensed either by the Coast Guard or by the Canadian Government, and this bill does the same thing, sir.

Mr. LENNON. Are you saying then that this bill does not restrict to the slightest degree whatever your area of responsibility with respect to maritime safety?

Admiral RICHMOND. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Curtin?

Mr. CURTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral, I notice in this bill that there is discretion on the part of the President in designating foreign vessels that are going to come under this pilotage law.

Admiral RICHMOND. Yes.

Mr. CURTIN. What is the reason for that? Why should it not apply to all vessels over a certain tonnage?

Admiral RICHMOND. The answer to that, sir, was that the earlier bill referred to all vessels over 300 gross tons. If all countries had the same type of documentation, this would be very easy, because then you could say all registered vessels, but they don't. Because of the problem of the Canadian vessels, some of which are what they call canallers I refer to this-it was necessary to put in a provision to provide for a selection of the vessels which operate normally on the Great Lakes and by virtue of that normal operation on the Great Lakes have the degree of proficiency which we feel is necessary for safety to distinguish them from the vessel, the expression I have used before, the outsider, that comes in on an itinerant basis, on one visit, the transient, in other words, and that was the purpose.

Presumably, the President will designate those vessels which operate normally in the Great Lakes as being outside of the requirements of a registered pilot and because, as I say, they already have the people trained on the basis of local knowledge and are qualified by either the Canadian Government or ourselves.

Mr. CURTIN. Then the exemptions that the President could give would only apply to Canadian vessels?

Admiral RICHMOND. Presumably.

In other words, if there were a foreign vessel that operated exclusively on the Great Lakes-I don't know how he could do it as far as other laws are concerned-presumably the President could by virtue of the fact that that vessel is a permanent operator on the Great Lakes, under the terms of this act exempt it.

I don't think that was contemplated, because, as I say, I know of no such vessel.

Mr. CURTIN. One other question, Admiral. You mentioned a few minutes ago that one of the objections to previous legislation was the fact that it required a pilot on these vessels at all times that they were in the Great Lakes. Does not this bill require that there be such a pilot on these vessels that the President designates at all times they are on the Great Lakes?

Admiral RICHMOND. Yes; if, for example, the President declared all U.S. waters of the Great Lakes restricted waters, then it would very definitely require a registered pilot to be aboard the whole time. To that extent the bill is open, you might say, to the same criticism as before.

Actually, in fact, in drafting this bill nobody contemplated that the President would make that broad and sweeping a decision. The theory behind this, I know, is that the President would designate certain waters. Nobody knows at this time what those waters would be. I presume that they would follow pretty closely-I am only presuming those areas that we felt in the preceding bill would be the areas that the Secretary would designate, where the pilot aboard had to be on the bridge and in control of the vessel, subject to the discretion of the master.

This bill now accepts what was referred to last year as a B certificate in the area of the so-called open waters of the Great Lakes, and from conversations with the Canadians I know that they contemplate a more stringent requirement on the granting of certificates for the

people on foreign vessels who could serve this purpose of being available to the master in the open waters of the Great Lakes.

The bill also requires, however, that if the foreign vessel does not have such a person who has met that qualification, then he must take a registered pilot anyway, so to that extent this bill does approach very closely to H.R. 57.

Mr. CURTIN. Let me repeat myself. This bill does provide that there has to be a registered pilot on board these foreign vessels at all times that they are on the Great Lakes?

Admiral RICHMOND. No, sir.

Mr. CURTIN. Doesn't it in section 3 (a)?

Admiral RICHMOND. You can have another officer qualified, sir. Section 3 (b) I think is what you are referring to.

Mr. CURTIN. In section 3(a) it says that there shall be such a registered pilot on board who is doing the piloting in the waters designated.

Admiral RICHMOND. Those are what we call restricted waters. Mr. CURTIN. That is right.

Admiral RICHMOND. Right, sir.

Mr. CURTIN. Then in section 3(b) it says that there shall be on board in all other waters a registered pilot who is available.

Admiral RICHMOND. A registered pilot or other officer qualified for the waters concerned.

Mr. CURTIN. I see.

Mr. GARMATZ. That would mean a captain on the ordinary ship? Admiral RICHMOND. It could be the captain. If you recall, in Mr. White's statement he indicated that the Canadians presumably are going to set up some qualifications. It could be the captain or it could be another officer who had met the qualifications for, as I say, what has been referred to as a B or lesser certificate, sir.

Mr. CURTIN. Thank you, Admiral.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Glenn?

Mr. GLENN. No questions.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. Admiral, you made the statement that your interest is in maritime safety. It is not clear to me how strong you endorse the provisions set forth in this proposed bill, specifically the sections other than those dealing with the safety elements. Do I understand you appear here today in full sponsorship of this measure?

Admiral RICHMOND. Yes, sir; I do. Of course, I am not prepared to speak on provisions that don't affect the Coast Guard. That is my point. I mean I don't think I am competent to answer those questions. Mr. JOHNSON. However, you don't qualify your support of the measure?

Admiral RICHMOND. No, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Directing your attention to section 10 in which it sets up an advisory committee of three members, can you tell me what need and purpose there is of an advisory committee?

Admiral RICHMOND. As I say, that is a section again that does not affect the Coast Guard.

I have been in on some of the drafting meetings. I think there are others better able to testify to that, and I would like to ask, if they feel that my answer is wrong, that they corect me on it, but essentially

the idea behind that was that that would be a committee which the Secretary of Commerce would have to advise him on matters, particularly with respect to the rates, pool, and the administration of these pools of pilots, and how they should be operated.

Mr. JOHNSON. You would think then that one of the members. would be from the Coast Guard or a representative of the Coast Guard?

Admiral RICHMOND. I don't think that the actual membership of the advisory committee was ever particularly considered. He might or he might not be, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. You state that you support the bill, but as to the advisory committee you feel that the other departments might comment on that?

Admiral RICHMOND. I think they would be better able. I would hesitate to say.

Certainly the Coast Guard would not insist on being a member of the advisory committee. If the Secretary of Commerce asked the Coast Guard to participate, we are always happy to cooperate, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Admiral, in your opinion, if the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation were given additional powers, do you feel that you, the Coast Guard, could work with that corporation and come forward with the same accomplishment as what is proposed here in this bill?

Admiral RICHMOND. Yes, I see no reason why not.

Mr. JOHNSON. Because we do have a corporation that is functioning

now.

Admiral RICHMOND. Even under H.R. 57, getting back to the economic proposition-I think they have the basic authority right now-they could have hired a pool of people who would have met the requirements of H.R. 57, and charged for their services according to that, but I know reasons why they were reluctant to undertake such appropriation.

Mr. JOHNSON. Admiral, what about the disposition of the receipts from the tolls and the civil liability that may be collected?

Admiral RICHMOND. With respect to what, sir?

Mr. JOHNSON. As to the tolls that will be collected there for the use of the seaway, and we have set up in the bill that there can be rather substantial civil liabilities.

Admiral RICHMOND. You are talking about the seaway now, sir; not this bill?

Mr. JOHNSON. No. The seaway; yes, sir.

Admiral RICHMOND. I am not an expert on the seaway's requirements, sir, or the tolls, or anything. I think that somebody from Commerce or the seaway would be better able to answer that than myself,

sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Those are all the questions I have.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Kluczynski?

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions, but I am very happy to be here as a former member of this fine committee and very happy to sit here again to listen to the testimony of a man who is doing such a wonderful job as the head of the Coast Guard, Admiral Richmond.

Admiral RICHMOND. Thank you.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I am sure that Admiral Richmond is interested in the safety first. Coming from the city of Chicago, one of the cities on the Great Lakes, we, too, are interested in the same thing and interested in the pilotage bill.

This H.R. 10593 as introduced by our good chairman, Mr. Bonner, I am sure has taken all the good of H.R. 57 that we had in the previous session, and also all the other bills introduced in the 84th Congress. I remember being a member of this committee when we kicked that legislation around session after session, and I think it is about time that we in this 86th Congress pass this good legislation that you are so interested in and everybody concerned is interested in such as labor, industry, the State Department, the Commerce Department, and you, the great arm of our Federal Government, the Coast Guard.

I am sure that after all the testimony is in this subcommittee will go through the bill and the amendments that you have suggested that will help everybody concerned.

I hope you report it to the full committee and that we can pass it in the House in the near future and have it become a law before we adjourn.

Thank you.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Ray?

Mr. RAY. Mr. Chairman..

Admiral, on page 4 of the bill, section 4(a) authorizes the Secretary to make regulations, but I call your attention to this phrase:

Provide for equitable participation of United States registered pilots with Canadian registered pilots.

The bill does not contain any definition of standards by which equitable participation is to be measured. Has that been the subject of discussion?

I know the question should primarily go to the witnesses who will come tomorrow.

Do you have any ideas on that subject?

Admiral RICHMOND. I don't think it has been given any great consideration, you might say, to the extent of how it will be worked out. Certainly as an objective, it is stated both on the Canadian side and on our side that, you might say, for those ports common to those areas, common to both the Canadians and ourselves, it should be basically equal, that is, 50–50.

You get into complicating factors because there you are going to have vessels entering that are bound not only to those restricted areas, but exclusively Canadian ports or exclusively United States ports. So as to details, I do not think anybody has come face to face with what equitable consideration is.

I think really this was, as much as anything, an answer to one of the criticisms of H.R. 57 on the part of the people on our side. Since we didn't feel that it was proper in a purely safety bill to get into the controls, the criticism of the earlier bills was the fact that the Canadians had a more or less stranglehold on all the trade. I think I told this committee once that, unfortunately, was probably true because of the geographic circumstances that came to pass a great many years ago, which is the fact that all the vessels coming into the lakes enter into the St. Lawrence River and through Canadian territory,