Page images

increased cost is due to the fact that these officers must all be licensed pilots. They have to take a very strict and thorough examination in all the waters of the Great Lakes, not just so-called restricted waters, but in the open waters. They must know every light, every shoal, every buoy, and everything else in the open waters just as they must know in the restricted waters. They must make so many trips, 12 trips over those open waters, just the same as they do over the restricted waters.

Mr. BOURBON. Your statement, then, about foreign pilots would indicate that you believe it would definitely be the Canadian purpose to register the officers on these foreign ships as qualified officers ?

Mr. SPENCER. That, Mr. Bourbon, is my personal opinion. I just hate to see the sovereign government of the United States license foreigners to navigate vessels in its waters. I frankly state that that is not an official position of the Lake Carriers' Association. That is my own statement; I hope I made that clear.

Senator Scort. Thank you very much.
Mr. SPENCER. Thank you for listening to me.

Senator Scort. Mr. Alvin Shapiro, vice president of American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc.



I am vice president of the American Merchant Marine Institute, the largest national association representing American ship owners and operators. Some of our member lines operate under subsidy and others do not. Together they represent a substantial majority of our total American-flag fleet of tankers, freighters, and passenger ships operating on all four coasts of the United States.

Our organization has consistently supported every genuine effort to improve safety at sea and lessen the hazards of navigation. We wholeheartedly support, therefore, the basic principles involved in S. 3019, but will urge certain amendments which will strengthen and clarify the provisions as introduced.

Although there is at present on the books a law requiring the service of qualified piloting skills on United States and Canadian vessels navigating solely on the Great Lakes, there is no statutory requirement that oceangoing vessels of any flag have this skill available while in U.S. waters.

Fundamentally, this bill would require oceangoing vessels to have on board a pilot or other qualified officer in navigating U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, connecting and tributary waters, and the St. Lawrence River as far east as St. Regis. In areas generally considered restricted, said individual would direct the navigation, while in less restricted areas an individual of the same skill or, at a minmum, qualified for nonrestricted area navigation, must at least be on board.

I need not attempt to impress this committee with facts well known about the tremendous increase in vessel traffic into and out of our Great Lakes marked particularly by the opening, last year, of the St. Lawrence Seaway to oceangoing vessels. This means that navigation in these long stretches of water may well continue to be menaced if skilled pilots or other officers fully qualified and thoroughly knowledgeable about the waters in which they sail are not directing or available to direct the navigation of these ships during the course of their voyages

in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence area. It seems to us entirely proper to look ahead to ever-increasing intensity of use of these waters with concomitant navigation problems and seek now, rather than later, to remedy serious deficiencies in present law. These statutory deficiencies may become catastrophic realities when navigation opens in the spring.

In practically every port in the world pilots are required by law. By consent of our Government, pilotage in this country generally has been handled as a State function, and each harbor has its

pilot organization operating under State control. As applied to waters of the Great Lakes, however, State control would be entirely impractical because of the fact that at least eight States would be involved plus, of course, the Canadian Government. It would be practically impossible, and in many ways disadvantageous, to set up separate organizations to operate in limited parts of the area. We believe, therefore, that S. 3019 is a workable plan for minimizing the hazards of navigation in the area, and offers the best prospect for speedy enactment.

I believe the committee should know that on three prior occasions we have appeared before congressional committees urging enactment of a somewhat different proposal pointing in a similar direction. There remains today, in fact, a House committee-approved bill known as H.R. 57 on which the full House has not acted. Many alleged shortcomings of that proposal have been itemized by a variety of opponents. It would not be productive for me to now evaluate those criticisms since, in fact, the prospects for enactment of H.R. 57 are indeed dim. It may well be that even in regard to S. 3019 objectionists will point out a number of shortcomings aimed at frustrating this legislation. In this connection, I want to note two facts:

(1) Our suggested amendments are not aimed at frustrating enactment of a reasonable proposal; and

(2) Considering the fact that we are applying a new system to a new area, bordering on the jurisdiction of two governments, no proposal even approaching perfection could possibly be developed at this time. S. 3019 will be short of perfect, but it is a starting point-a very essential starting point. And I am certain only the course of experience under it will make it possible to evolve an even more workable program

May I reiterate that the present lack of perfection in this basio proposal should in no way act as a barrier to its enactment?

Apart from its merit as a starting point, the bill before you provides a basis for resolving international issues as between the two Federal Governments involved. It provides a basis for the establishment of reasonable rates; fair distribution of jobs between citizens of the United States and Canada; and adequate supervision of the competency and discipline of the personnel who will be involved.

Nevertheless, may we take the liberty of suggesting the following:

In S. 3019 Congress has undertaken to legislate on many matters normally falling within the purview of the Coast Guard. În earlier proposals, serious questions were raised about the designation of restricted versus nonrestricted areas. During the course of this discussion all parties were reasonably aware of what was intended to be designated as a "restricted” area. We therefore suggest that this area be specifically spelled out in the legislation rather than proceeding with the unique proposal of having the President designate these waters.

Since Congress is undertaking in S. 3019 the entire task, we believe the Congress should be responsible for the area designations, allowing, as we propose, for the expansion of restricted areas following public hearing. To effect this, we suggest inclusion of the following provision:

(a) In the following described United States waters of the Great Lakes : (i) on the Saint Lawrence River between its source in eastern Lake Ontario to Saint Regis: (ii) on the waters of western Lake Erie, the Detroit River, Lake Saint Clair and the Saint Clair River between the line 82 degrees 20 minutes west in Lake Erie to the vicinity of Fort Gratior Light at Port Huron; (iii) in transit through the Saint Mary's River between Detour and Point Iroquois, including the channels and locks of Sault Sainte Marie; and (iv) following public hearing, in other confined United States waters of the Great Lakes, when the head of the De partment in which the Coast Guard is operating deems it necessary in the interest of marine safety, registered vessels of the United States and such foreign vessels as the President may designate shall be required to have in their service a United States registered pilot or a Canadian registered pilot who shall, subject to the customary authority of the master, direct the navigation of the vessel in the foregoing waters.

May I add that in connection with H.R. 57 the State Department favored this procedure, and as a matter of fact, this is word for word, as I recall, the State Department and the Commerce Department proposal in connection with the earlier bill and in connection with the bill as it was heard last year on the House side.

Senator LAUSCHE. What dangers do you foresee in allowing the President to designate the areas?

Mr. SHAPIRO. We are speaking of a law which is going on the books and will be on the books for a long time, and none of the reference is to the President as such. It is just the position of a man, of any man. Here the Congress is undertaking a job, and we think the job should be completely

undertaken by the designation of these waters. It is entirely conceivable, I admit, remote, that a President may designate the entire Great Lakes area. If he designates the entire Great Lakes area, we are exactly back to the controversy we were back at when this was discussed before this committee-Senator Lausche, you

made reference to it before-2 years ago. Senator LAUSCHE. What was your position 2 years ago?

Mr. SHAPIRO. Two years ago we favored the bill. And we have always favored this bill.

It seems to me as though whatever standards, or whatever consultation takes place, in order to advise the President-clearly he isn't making this designation on his own; people, governmental agencies are advising him—it seems to me as though those same governmental agencies should advise the Congress of the United States, and the Congress of the United States should designate the waters. Exactly the same agencies are manifesting the same responsibility. It is a question of their manifesting that responsibility to the President, which is a rather unique idea, or to the Congress of the United States which is responsible for this entire problem right now.

Senator LAUSCHE. I understand your reasons which you feel we ought to define these restricted areas in the bill. Can you outline the reasons that might be advanced by those who say the President ought to identify them?

Mr. SHAPIRO. Senator Lausche, I think this is a result of problems or developments about which I am not keenly aware, and certainly not expert.

When this original proposition of designating the waters was being discussed during the course of last fall and what we have been through of 1960, it was discussed in the very high quarters of State Department, Commerce Department, and the Treasury Department, and a large part of the determinations as to what was feasible and what was not feasible was controlled by both the State Department, I would assume—because of the international problems and the Budget Bureau.

I have never understood why it was necessary for the President to designate these waters. Clearly the President can only do it on advice of either the Coast Guard or the Commerce Department or perhaps the State Department, or even all three combined. And if these are the people who have been responsible for this piece of legislation, it seems to me as though they should come to you and say these are the areas about which we are talking; these are the areas we are going to urge the President to designate tomorrow. But I want the Congress of the United States to do it, not the President.

Senator LAUSCHE. Is there any unanimity of agreement at present which are the areas that require extra pilots?

Mr. SHAPIRO. Senator, I know of no disagreement. There may be some, but I know of none.

I think the agencies that have been responsible, the Coast Guard, State Department, and Commerce Department, would be most apt to answer that question accurately. I have not heard of any disagreement.

Senator LAUSCHE. There is no disagreement, according to your understanding, that the areas which you have designated are the vital ones.

Mr. SHAPIRO. Precisely. These are the areas which the State Department and Commerce Department urged last year. They urged it last year and now they want to give it to the President to designate. This is a transition that I don't understand.

Senator LAUSCHE. May I repeat the question: Do you see any other reasons why you would want to put it in the President's hands when we understand that the Congress can now clearly identify the areas?

Mr. SHAPIRO. I know of none, sir.

Mr. BOURBON. Why would you have the President designate the ships that are to be concerned ?

Mr. SHAPIRO. We cover this amendment. This is our next amendment, and we modify that, too.

In section 3(a) of the bill it is proposed that in the restricted waters a pilot shall direct the navigation of all U.S. registered vessels, but only those foreign vessels which the President may designate. We assume that this unique language is not intended to create a discrimination against American-flag vessels but rather results from the intention to exclude Canadian vessels trading exclusively on the Great Lakes covered by another statute while in American waters.

May we suggest, therefore, the amendment of section 3(a) to provide that pilotage is necessary on "all foreign vessels, except Canadian domestic vessels” and that these vessels shall be required to have in their service a U.S. or Canadian registered pilot to direct the navigation of such vessels in the confined waters stipulated in our amendment.

Section 3(a) in its present form is entirely too indefinite in respect to the application of its provisions to foreign-flag vessels.

Under section 3(a), the President, if he so desired, could exempt other foreign-flag vessels, in addition to Canadian Great Lakes vessels, from the pilotage requirements of subsection (a). We believe the President's exemption authority with respect to foreign-flag vessels should be limited specifically to Canadian vessels which navigate on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River exclusively, so that there will be no possibility whatsoever that other foreign-flag vessels may be exempted from the pilotage requirements of section 3(a).

Section 3(b) should also be amended in precisely the same manner. The State Department, in testimony today, said that they like the language in the present bill because it gave them flexibility. This is precisely what we do not like. If any exception should be made to the requirement for pilotage on foreign-flag vessels, there is plenty of spelling out in the language of the bill of the basis on which exceptions can be made, and these exceptions would be made both to American-flag vessels and to foreign-flag vessels. One of the exceptions, for instance, is the lack of availability of a pilot. The exceptions are spelled out in the bill.

So far as flexibility is concerned, this is flexibility that can operate only one way. The President is given flexible authority to designate only the foreign-flag vessels. The American vessels are stated right in the law, right in the bill. This is the kind of flexibility that isn't terribly attractive to us. And since we all know what we are talking about, I think there can be no question about this. We all know that when we say the President shall designate such foreign-flag vessels the only area that anybody contemplating that he may not designate a foreign-flag vessel is a foreign flag which rould be a Canadian Great Lakes vessel.

Our point is, Why not say this right in the language of the bill?

The institute recommends that section 5(a) be amended to provide that the Secretary of Commerce shall hold a public hearing prior to establishing rates, charges, and any other conditions or terms for services performed by registered pilots. This could be accomplished by inserting the words “after public hearing” immediately following the word "Secretary” on line i on page 7 of S. 3019. This amendment should certainly be acceptable, in view of the fact that the rates, charges, and other terms and conditions for services performed by registered pilots will have to be paid for or met, as the case may be, by the shipowners. The shipowners should, therefore, have an ade

« PreviousContinue »