countries was considered to offer a more practical basis for joint pilotage.

Under the provisions of this bill, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to regulate the rates, charges, and terms and conditions for the pilotage of the vessels to which the bill is applicable, and to arrange for coordination with the appropriate agency of Canada in regard to these items.

Additionally, the Secretary of Commerce is charged with the responsibility of registering U.S. pilots qualified for the performance of the pilotage required by the provisions of the bill. Registration would be confined to holders of appropriate master's licenses issued by the Coast Guard and suitably endorsed for pilotage on specified routes.

The Secretary is to issue regulations in regard to other requirements for registration, but matters pertaining to the professional competency of pilots and to their navigation licenses would fall within the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard.

Canada has indicated that it would be prepared to register Canadian pilots on a similar basis and would allow U.S. registered pilots to serve in Canadian waters of the Great Lakes if pilotage by Canadian registered pilots is permitted in U.S. waters.

The bill provides for such reciprocity and, in order to provide for equitable participation by both United States and Canadian registered pilots, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to arrange with the appropriate Canadian agency for the number of pilots who shall be registered in each country.

The Secretary of Commerce is also empowered to authorize the formation of a pool or pools by a voluntary association or associations of U.S. registered pilots to provide the arrangements and facilities required for the efficient dispatching of vessels and rendering of pilotage services. Such a pool or pools will be subject to regulation and inspection, and the Secretary may require their coordination with similar arrangements in Canada.

These provisions in regard to pooling follow the pattern of State pilotage systems. Together with provisions for registration, they are essential features of the bill for the purpose of assuring adequate pilotage services and equitable participation by United States and Canadian registered pilots in the rendering of those services.

I might add that written arrangements between the Secretary of Commerce and the appropriate agency of Canada would involve the concurrence of the Secretary of State in any written arrangement. Owing to inclusion of provisions for a regulated pilotage system in coordination with Canada, the scope of H.R. 10593 extends considerably beyond that of previous Great Lakes pilotage bills which provided for functions only on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury as the head of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating. In contrast, the present bill also provides for a considerable range of functions on the part of the Secretary of Commerce, and the responsibilities of the Secretary of State would likewise be increased by the broadened scope of the bill.

The functions and responsibilities of all three Department heads would be affected by the designation of restricted waters where all

vessels that are subject to the provisions of the bill would be required to use the services of a registered pilot.

Furthermore, the designation of restricted waters would determine the extent and location of open waters of the Lakes.

The designation of restricted waters is, therefore, of fundamental overall importance in the implementation of the provisions of the bill by the three Department heads concerned and coordination with Canada. Consequently, factors beyond the purview of the functions or responsibilities of a single Department head would have to be taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, and in view of the farreaching effects of the designation of restricted waters, the bill provides that the President shall have the responsibility of making such designations.

It is also provided that the bill shall be applicable to registered vessels of the United States and those foreign vessels designated by the President.

In order to deal with special or questionable cases and to administer the bill on a basis which will also provide for the equitable treatment of United States and foreign vessels, it is necessary to provide for some degree of flexibility in the designation of the ships to which the provisions of the bill would be applicable. Accordingly, and since this is a function which has foreign relations aspects and would have an effect on other functions, the bill provides that the President shall have the responsibility of designating the foreign vessels to which it would be applicable.

With respect to open waters of the Great Lakes, the provisions of the bill would have the effect of requiring a vessel to which the bill is applicable to carry on board a registered pilot or an officer of the vessel's regular complement qualified for the navigation of those waters who is licensed by the Coast Guard or certificated by the Canadian Department of Transport. This pilot or ship's officer would have to be available for the direction of the navigation of the vessel at the discretion of and subject to the customary authority of the master. The master of a vessel who is so qualified and licensed or certificated could himself meet these requirements.

As is indicated in the Aide Memoires which are attachments to this statement, the Canadian Government is prepared to include in its proposals to Parliament for compatible legislation such provisions as may be considered necessary to provide for the certification of officers of the regular complement of oceangoing vessels who hold an appropriate master's license, have had actual experience in the navigation of the open waters of the lakes through which these vessels will proceed, and have a knowledge of the practice of following separate upbound and downbound courses on the lakes.

In addition, such officers would be required to demonstrate by examination a working knowledge of the Great Lakes rules of the road and sufficient command of English to use a radiotelephone.

The foregoing statement covers the highlights of the background and general features of the bill that have foreign relations aspects. Other aspects of the bill fall within the province of the Department of Commerce or the Coast Guard.

I shall only add, therefore, that the bill is the outcome of a collective effort of considerable magnitude to which Admiral Richmond and the

representatives of the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Budget, and other agencies, as well as our Canadian friends, have made important contributions.

The Department of State believes that the bill provides for adequate pilotage requirements for ocean vessels and a workable basis for meeting those requirements.

We recognize that amendments may be needed from time to time in the light of experience and future developments, but in the meanwhile the bill will provide for a reasonable solution of the most pressing problems created by the absence of pilotage requrements for ocean. vessels navigating the Great Lakes.

Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. BOYKIN. That is a good statement.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Ray?

Mr. RAY. Mr. Chairman, is this not a pretty complicated sort of machinery setup with three departments of our Government required to make a decision?

Mr. WHITE. As far as the State Department is concerned, it is largely a matter of assisting and directing the working out on a mutual, satisfactory basis of the details with the Canadian Government, so really, for practical purposes, it comes down to a question of the activities of the Secretary of Commerce and the head of the Coast Guard.

Mr. RAY. How many departments operate on the Canadian side? Mr. WHITE. I will defer to Mr. Haering, who has worked with them on that question.

Mr. HAERING. In Canada, the Department of Transport has the combined functions except for some foreign relations aspects of pilotage that are included in this bill.

Mr. RAY. Would it not be better legislation to have one operating agency in our Government insofar as the enactment of the law is concerned, and perhaps to provide in the report for consultation, centering authority in one place?

Mr. WHITE. It is my understanding that it is possible in the case of the Canadian Government to have the administration concentrated in the Department of Transport because in their internal operations they customarily encompass the activities which in this country are shared by the Department of Commerce and the Coast Guard, so in that respect the problem is a little different.

Mr. RAY. It does not seem to me like very good organization of an effort to have a divided responsibility of that sort or to put it up to the President, as this bill does in some cases.

Mr. HAERING. Could I say in that respect, Mr. Ray, that there has been an endeavor here to delineate the responsibilities of the different departments and to dovetail them with each other, because the Coast Guard has indicated in the past, and quite accurately, that the economic functions or the economic aspects of pilotage do not fall within their jurisdiction, and of course you also have the foreign relations aspects in addition to safety in addition to the economic aspects of the bill.

In Canada you also have the Department of External Affairs coming into the picture so that excepting for the regulation of pilotage and the establishment of pilotage requirements, in Canada you also have two departments really engaged in some way in responsibility for pilotage.

Mr. RAY. Is not the authority to take action centered in one department in Canada and it does its own consulting as it finds necessary? Have they set up a two-headed or a three-headed body?

Mr. HAERING. The Department of Transport in Canada has a combination of Coast Guard functions, regulation of all transportation, excepting possibly railways. There is a railway board and I am not familiar whether it is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, but this Department of Transport, in effect, might be called a department of transportation, and it has the various functions that are connected with that particular field, including air transport. I believe they also have something to do with railways, but definitely air and water transportation.

Mr. RAY. Mr. Chairman, I think my questions are premature perhaps until we have heard from the other departments. I will wait. Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Clark?

Mr. CLARK. I think it is a very good statement. I think that this bill is certainly a long time in Congress and we should act on it at this session of Congress.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Dorn?

Mr. DORN. What other agencies have agreements or do work, which work in turn is subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of State? Mr. WHITE. Virtually all of them as regards agreements with a foreign country. Whether it is in an operational form, once it reaches the point where a written agreement or understanding is required it is worked out jointly with the Department of State and the foreign ministry of the foreign country concerned.

Mr. DORN. Can you point to any other bills that have the language in them similar to this, that any written arrangements between the Secretary and the appropriate agency of Canada, or whatever other country it might be, under the provisions of this act shall be subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of State?

Mr. WHITE. Yes. The terms of reference under which both our International Joint Commission on Trans-Boundary Waters and I believe on our Joint Boundary Commission with Canada contain provisions—I am not exactly sure as to what they are, but I would be glad to put together the situation on our various working relations with Canada in other areas of activity and submit that to you or to the committee, if that would be of help to you.

Mr. DORN. For the record, if you would, please. (Information referred to follows:)

Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 18, 1960.

Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee,
House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the course of my testimony on March 9, 1960, before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Navigation of your committee with respect to H.R. 10593, a bill relating to Great Lakes pilotage, I was asked to forward to the subcommittee certain additional background information concerning section 6 of the bill. I am now pleased to submit this information for the use of the subcommittee.

Section 6 of H.R. 10593 provides that "any written arrangements between the Secretary [of Commerce] and the appropriate agency of Canada under the provisions of this Act shall be subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of State." Other sections of the bill authorize and direct the Secreary of Commerce to administer certain aspects of the pilotage system established for the U.S.

waters of the Great Lakes and in the course of such administration to arrange with the appropriate Canadian agency for the coordination of pilotage rules and regulations in the two countries. Section 6 recognizes that while the Secretary of Commerce is directly concerned with the substance of any pilotage arrangements with his Canadian counterpart authorized by the provisions of this bill, the Secretary of State, as the agent of the President in the conduct of foreign relations, has primary responsibility with respect to any foreign policy aspects of such interagency arrangements. For this reason, his concurrence in any written pilotage arrangements between the Secretary of Commerce and a Canadian agency is required by section 6.

The above section is analagous to section 7(a) of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Act of 1950, Public Law 845, 81st Congress. That legislation was -enacted to give effect to the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, signed at Washington, February 8, 1949. Section 7(a) provides that the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the function of administering and enforcing certain provisions of the convention, may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, cooperate with the duly authorized officials of the Government of any party to the convention.

In this regard, it may also be noted that under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) and the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.), and Executive orders issued to carry out those acts (see Executive Order 10841, Oct. 1, 1959, and Executive Order 10560, Sept. 13, 1954, as amended), various departments and agencies of the U.S. Government perform functious in the international field, subject, however, to the responsibilities of the Secretary of State with respect to the foreign policy of the United States.

I hope that the foregoing information will be of assistance to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Navigation of your committee in its consideration of H.R. 10593.

Sincerely yours,

IVAN B. WHITE,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for European Affairs. Mr. DORN. What would this concurrence of the Secretary of State consist of?

Would it be merely as to the format of the paper agreement, or would it go to the substance?

Mr. WHITE. I think it would be largely a concurrence based solely on ascertaining to our satisfaction that the Canadian Government at the political level had concurred in it. I don't anticipate that our activity would deal with the technical parts of the operation; is that

correct?

Mr. HAERING. The purpose of this provision is simply this. There will be quite a few operational arrangements made back and forth, over the telephone and informally in the operation of this system, between the Secretary of Commerce or the Department of Commerce and people in the Department of Transport.

On occasion it may be necessary for the Secretary of Commerce and the Department of Transport to exchange something in writing as to an understanding in regard to their arrangements. This will bring up, of course, the question as to whether the written understanding is on the subject of any matters that relate to other agreements we may have with Canada. It is for that reason that only the written arrangements will be subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of State.

Mr. DORN. What duties other than this would the Secretary of State have under this bill?

Mr. WHITE. That is virtually it, sir, those relating to our relationship with the Canadian Government.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Lennon?