Page images

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly am speaking for myself only, that we have an obligation not only to the merchant marine of the world, but primarily to that that is flag-owned by the United States, and I favor the suggestion made by this witness as to spelling out in detail the so-called restricted waters in which these licenses would be required, and in addition thereto the amendment that the gentleman has suggested that his institute would offer to spell out categorically so there can be no hereafter about it as to what constituted foreign vessels.

That is what your amendment does, and certainly with respect to your amendment which you suggested about public hearing, there ought to be a public hearing of course by the Secretary to ascertain all of these questions with respect to charges, and rates, and courses, and whatnot.

I hope this committee, when it proceeds in this matter, will take the witness testimony very seriously because I think it is a comprehensive and fair statement of the problem we have here.

Mr. SHAPIRO. If I might just add one further point, I think we are operating in a terribly nebulous area, which was not the case in H.R. 57, which, as you know, we supported, and we support the present bill. There is no question about that. There is no equivocating about it.

However, either we know the area we are talking about or we don't know the area we are talking about. The same parties who are responsible for advising the President so that he can designate these waters-surely, the President isn't going to take this trip and map these waters himself—it seems to me, should come before this committee and the Congress of the United States and say, “This is what we intend to be designated,” and you can't fool anybody by pushing this problem off into some vague never-never land after this committee has bestowed the carte blanche.

Mr. LENNON. I think we all recognize the fact, or at least I do, that international considerations will get into this thing and the State Department will be besieged by requests of foreign governments to exclude the vessels from country X, or country Y, or country S.

The way the bill is now before us, I think it is a discrimination against the American-flag ships. I think that is what it amounts to. Thank you. Mr. GARMATZ. Thank you, Mr. Shapiro.

We have more witnesses, but I am afraid we will not have time. It is 5 minutes to 12. The House will go into session at 12 and we will notify the committee and the other witnesses that we will continue our meeting tomorrow morning and we will start at 9:30.

We have some people from out of town and we want to try to get through with them tomorrow.

The meeting will stand adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene Thursday, March 10, 1960, at 9:30 a.m.)

[ocr errors]




Washington, D.O. The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 219, Old House Office Building, Hon. Edward A. Garmatz (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Garmatz, Clark, Lennon, Nix, Oliver, Ray, Dorn, Curtin, and Glenn.

Also present: Representative Kluczynski.

Staff members present: John M. Drewry, chief counsel, and William B. Winfield, chief clerk.

Mr. GARMATZ. The meeting will come to order.

Our first witness this morning is a gentleman whom we are all proud to have with us, a former member of this committee, and who is now the Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation, Brother John Allen from California.



with you.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be back Mr. GARMATZ. Thank you.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement which is fairly short and I would like to read into the record.

Mr. ĜARMATZ. Surely.

Mr. ALLEN. I appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the Department of Commerce with respect to H.R. 10593, a bill providing for the establishment of pilotage requirements for navigation of the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes.

In view of the fact that the Department of State has reviewed the steps leading to introduction of the bill and commented on its purpose, and the Coast Guard has commented on those provisions which would be administered by the Treasury Department, I propose to confine my comments to provisions of the bill which would be administered by the Secretary of Commerce.

The Department of Commerce did not support H.R. 57, which is pending in the House of Representatives. The Department believed that pilotage requirements on the waters involved should be closely coordinated between the United States and Canada, and that regula


tions prescribed by this country should not be inconsistent with those of Canada.

H.R. 10593 represents the result of coordination between the Departments of State, Treasury, and Commerce, and the Bureau of the Budget. The bill recognizes the responsibilities of the Department of State with respect to foreign relations, and those of the Coast Guard with respect to safety.

The Secretary of Commerce would be vested with authority under the bill to prescribe and administer regulations for the pilotage of vessels to which the bill applies. Specifically, the Secretary would have authority to

(1) Regulate the number of pilots and assure the continued availability of qualified personnel through registration;

(2) Provide for equitable participation of U.S. registered pilots with Canadian registered pilots in the pilotage services required by both countries for the navigation of vessels on the Great Lakes;

(3) Authorize the formation, and provide for the supervision, of pilotage pools;

(4) Establish the rates, charges, or other conditions for services by registered pilots;

(5) Enforce those penalty provisions of the act relating to his responsibilities. The Secretary also would be authorized to appoint an advisory committee of three members, who have had practical experience in maritime operations, for the purpose of making recommendations with respect to pilotage regulations and policies. He also would be able to use, with their consent and on a reimbursable basis, the services, facilities, and personnel of other agencies of the Federal Government.

The pilotage provisions of the bill would not become effective until the first day of the fourth month following the issuance of regulations by the Secretary. H.R. 10593 was written in such form that the Administrative Procedure Act would apply to it.

At the present time, the Canadian Government has an organization in the Nautical Division of the Department of Transport which regulates pilotage in certain Canadian waters. This organization regulates pilotage fees, and exercises supervision over pilotage in general. The Canadian organization provides some indication of what may be required for the exercise of those functions which would be vested in the Secretary.

In addition, statistical information on vessel transits and traffic patterns between ports on the Great Lakes wihch we already have for the 1959 season, and which will be available on a current basis, will assist in determining the type of organization and manpower required.

The St. Lawrence Seaway has just completed its first full year of operation with respect to deep-draft oceangoing vessels. The regulation of pilotage by our Government has been delayed because of the national and international interests that have been involved.

However, we believe that this delay is justifiable since the bill incorporates what this Department considers to be a reasonable and practicable solution of the pilotage problem.

We further believe that the proposed pilotage system envisioned in this bill, when operated in conjunction with the proposed Canadian

system, will adequately meet the requirements of both countries, as well as provide equitable treatment of third-nation vessels.

The Department urges that H.R. 10593 be given favorable consideration by your committee.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Ray?

Mr. Ray. Mr. Chairman. I would also like to say it is good to have you

with us. Mr. ALLEN. Thank you.

Mr. Ray. On page 2, numbered subparagraph (2), in your statement, you stated that the Secretary would have authority to “provide for equitable participation." Does that term need definition in legislation of this sort?

Mr. ALLEN. I doubt that it does.

I think that before we could determine what would be equitable participation, we would have to know what the availability of personnel would be; we would have to know what system we would use that would be consistent with the Canadian system and vice versa, and the details that would be involved, I think, would make it desirable to have some experience before the problem of whether or not we had equitable distribution were determined.

I think we can work to the best advantage without having a definition.

Mr. Ray. Would the vagueness of that term permit a question to be raised in court as to the validity of the law with respect to the delegation of authority ?

Mr. ALLEN. I could not give a firm answer.

I would think that it would be similar to having a reasonable share of the business or something of that sort where the term would be defined for a specific case by a court at the time the facts were presented. That is an offhand opinion.

Mr. Ray. If counsel for the Department has looked into that question, I would appreciate the memorandum on it, because it seems to me that leaves a loophole that ought not to be left in a bill of this kind.

Mr. ALLEN. I have great respect for the opinion of the counsel for the committee.

Mr. Ray. I will ask him, too. I think that is all at this moment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Nix? Mr. Nix. I have no questions. Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Oliver ? Mr. OLIVER. None at this time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Curtin? Mr. CURTIN. No questions. Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Lennon? Mr. LENNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Allen.

Mr. ALLEN. Good morning, Mr. Lennon.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Allen, you were not here yesterday when Mr. Shapiro, vice president of the American Merchant Marine Institute, testified?

Mr. ALLEN. No, sir.

Mr. LENNON. You have not yet had an opportunity to read his statement and the request that the American Merchant Marine Insti

« PreviousContinue »