Despite the fact the Magnuson bill is not going to satisfy everyone, it certainly is the most constructive and sensible piece of legislation on pilotage proposed so far. The bill contains sufficient safeguards to make it workable on both sides of the seaway, and it is to be hoped that, with some minor changes agreement will be reached on it as soon after the opening of inland navigation, as possible. There is merit to the claim of most ocean shipping lines that many of their officers are capable of handling the pilotage of their vessels on the open Great Lakes waters, and therefore should not be saddled with the added cost of carrying a pilot. On the other hand, consideration should also be given to the views of the Coast Guard and the pilotage associations, who contend that a safety factor is involved and that unskilled ship handlers pose a menace to not only the ocean fleets, but also the ever-increasing number of domestic ships using the lakes and the seaway. Therefore, it would appear to be essential that the qualifications of any ship's officer doubling as a pilot, be checked out to the joint satisfaction of both the Canadian and U.S. authorities before being permitted to continue on after passage has been completed on the confined areas. It is highly unlikely because of the controversial nature of the pilotage issue that any real solution is going to be found until the seaway has been in operation for a few more years at which time both Governments will have a better idea just what is needed in the way of final legislation. But on the record of 1959, some strong interim measure is a must for both countries. It cannot be put off any longer. Speedy enactment of a pilotage bill would not only clear up some of the safety fears of those who do business on the seaway, but could also go a long way toward clearing up, in the minds of ocean ship lines using the seaway, how much their added cost of doing business on the Great Lakes are going to be. Let's cut the hearings short and get down to the business of making the inland waterways what their backers call them-the safest ship lanes in the world. [From Congressional Record, Feb. 11, 1960] PILOTAGE REQUIREMENTS IN NAVIGATION OF U.S. WATERS OF THE GREAT LAKES Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, by request, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to provide for certain pilotage requirements in the navigation of U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Assistant Secretary of State, requesting the proposed legislation, together with an analysis of the bill, may be printed in the Record. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the letter and analysis will be printed in the Record. The bill (Senate 3019) to provide for certain pilotage requirements in the navigation of U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. Magnuson, by request, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. The letter and analysis presented by Mr. Magnuson are as follows: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 11, 1960. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Pursuant to the Department's letter of January 18, 1960, there are transmitted herewith a draft and analysis of a proposed bill to provide for certain pilotage requirements in the navigation of U.S. waters of the Great Lakes and for other purposes. This draft bill has been prepared jointly by the Departments of State and Commerce and the Coast Guard, with advice from the Bureau of the Budget. The primary purposes of the proposed bill are to establish pilotage requirements in U.S. waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River for U.S. and foreign-flag vessels operating on ocean routes into the Great Lakes and to provide the basis for a regulated system of pilotage to meet those requirements. Provision is made for coordination of this system with a pilotage system regulated by Canada in Canadian waters of the Great Lakes. The requirements provided for in the proposed bill would not be applicable to any vessel of the United States which is required by any other act to have in its service and on-board pilots or other navigating officers licensed by the United States for navigation in the Great Lakes. The proposed bill would not discriminate against foreign-flag ships and need not conflict with treaties to which the United States is a party. The Department has been informed by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this proposal to the Congress for its consideration. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM B. MACOMBER, Jr., ANALYSIS OF DRAFT OF PROPOSED BILL TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN PILOTAGE REQUIREMENTS IN THE NAVIGATION OF U.S. WATERS OF THE GREAT LAKES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES The general purposes and chief effects of the proposed bill would be (a) to establish pilotage requirements for vessels operating on ocean routes into the Great Lakes when navigating U.S. waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River; (b) to provide a basis for a regulated pilotage system for meeting the above-mentioned requirements; (c) to provide a basis for coordination with Canada in pilotage arrangements on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River as far east as St. Regis, as well as for the reciprocal and equitable particiption by United States and Canadian nationals in the pilotage of vessels to which the proposed bill is applicable in the above-indicated waters of both countries as far east as St. Regis. Section 1 provides for the citation of the proposed act as the "Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960." Section 2 defines the terms "Great Lakes," "Secretary," "U.S. registered pilot,” "Canadian registered pilot," and "other officer" as they are used in the act. Section 3 (a) provides for the designation by the President of the waters in which U.S.-registered vessels and such foreign vessels as are designated by him shall be required to have registered United States or Canadian pilots in their service for the direction of navigation, subject to the customary authority of the master. Both designations are to be made with due regard to the public interest, the effective utilization of navigable waters, marine safety, and the foreign relations of the United States. Paragraph (b) of section 3 provides that in waters not designated by the President under the provisions of paragraph (a) there shall be on board such U.S.-registered vessels and foreign vessels, a registered pilot or an officer of the vessel concerned who is qualified for the navigation of these undesignated waters. This registered pilot or officer shall be available to direct the navigation of the vessel in such waters at the discretion of and subject to the authority of the master. The provisions of this paragraph would have the effect of permitting a vessel to proceed in the undesignated waters of the Great Lakes without having on board a registered pilot if an officer of the regular complement of the vessel concerned were qualified for the navigation of such waters and either licensed by the Coast Guard or certificated by the appropriate agency of Canada. Paragraph (c) provides that the authority of Canadian registered pilots, or other officers certificated by Canada, to serve in U.S. waters of the Great Lakes will be in effect only so long as similar authority is extended to U.S. pilots, or licensed officers, in Canadian waters of the Great Lakes. Section 4(a) provides for registration of U.S. pilots by the Secretary of Commerce under such regulations as to qualifications, terms, and conditions as will assure adequate and efficient pilotage service, provide for equitable participation of U.S. pilots with Canadian pilots in the pilotage of vessels, and provide fair and reasonable opportunity for registration. Certain conditions for registration are specified, including the requirement that an applicant must be the holder of an appropriate master's license. Paragraph (b) of this section provides that the Secretary of Commerce shall issue documentary evidence of registration to U.S.-registered pilots, which shall be in their possession at all times when in the service of a vessel. This evidence of registration shall describe the part or parts of the Great Lakes within which the holder is authorized to perform pilotage, and such description shall not be inconsistent with the terms of the license issued by the Coast Guard. Paragraph (c) of this section contains provisions in regard to the period of validity of registration and the basis for the revocation and suspension of registration. Paragraph (d) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to enter into arrangements with Canada for participation by United States and Canadian registered pilots on an equitable basis, and for limitations on the number of pilots to be registered by each country. Paragraph (e) provides that the Secretary of Commerce may authorize the formation of pools by voluntary associations of pilots to provide the facilities and arrangements necessary for rendering pilotage services required by the bill. The Secretary is authorized to establish rules and regulations for the operation of pools and for the reciprocal coordination of pooling with arrangements in Canada, and the limitation of the number of pools. The auditing and inspection of pool operations and administration, and the prescribing of uniform systems of pool accounts, are also authorized. Section 5(a) authorizes and directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish the rates, charges, and any other terms for services performed by registered pilots. Paragraph (b) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to arrange with Canada for the establishment of joint or identical rates, charges, and other terms, for services by registered pilots in the Great Lakes. Paragraph (c) provides that the rates, charges, and other terms for pilotage services must be fair and equitable, giving due consideration to the public interest and the reasonable cost of providing such services. Section 6 provides that any written arrangements between the Secretary of Commerce and the appropriate agency of Canada under the provisions of the act shall be subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of State. Section 7(a) provides for the imposition of a civil penalty, not in excess of $500, on any owner, master, or person permitting the navigation of a vessel in violation of the provisions of section 3(a) and 3(b) of the act, or regulations issued pursuant thereto. The vessel is made liable for the penalty. The head of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating is given authority to enforce the provisions of this paragraph. Paragraph (b) is also to be enforced by the head of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating. This paragraph provides that any person who is not a registered pilot shall be subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $500 for each day he directs the navigation of a vessel in violation of the provisions of section 3 (a) or regulations issued pursuant thereto. Paragraph (c) provides that a person violating any regulations issued pursuant to sections 4 and 5 shall be liable in a civil penalty of $500 for each violation. The Secretary of Commerce is charged with enforcement of the provisions of this paragraph and may, upon application therefor, remit or mitigate the penalty provided for in this section upon such terms as he, in his discretion, shall think proper. (Secs. 4 and 5 specify matters in which the Secretary of Commerce has jurisdiction, and is authorized to take action or to regulate in coordination with the appropriate agency of Canada.) Section 8 provides that notwithstanding any other provisions of the act, a vessel may be navigated in U.S. waters of the Great Lakes without a registered pilot when the Secretary of Commerce, with the concurrence of the head of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, notifies the master that a registered pilot is not available, or when the vessel or its cargo is in distress or jeopardy. Section 9 provides in paragraph (a) that no State, municipal, or other local authority shall have any power to require pilots or regulate pilotage on the Great Lakes. Paragraph (b) provides that the provisions of the act shall not apply to any U.S. vessel which is required by any other act to have in its service pilots or other navigating officers licensed by the United States for the navigation of the Great Lakes. The effect of this paragraph is to exclude U.S. vessels of the "laker" category from the provisions of the act. Paragraph (c) of section 9 would have the effect of permitting Canadian vessels of the "laker" and St. Lawrence "canaler" categories to be navigated in U.S. waters of the Great Lakes by their officers without a registered pilot so long as Canada permits enrolled vessels of the United States to be navigated in Canadian waters of the Great Lakes by their officers. The officers of such Canadian vessels would have to be appropriately licensed by Canada while the officers of the enrolled U.S. vessels would have to hold licenses for the Great Lakes issued by the Coast Guard. Section 10(a) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to appoint an advisory committee of three members who have had practical experience in maritime operations. The members of the committee may be appointed or reappointed for terms not in excess of 5 years. Paragraph (b) provides that the advisory committee shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Commerce, and make such recommendations as are deemed appropriate with respect to pilotage regulations and policies. Paragraph (c) provides for compensation to the members of the advisory com, mittee, at a rate not exceeding $75 per day, when engaged in the performance of their duties, together with necessary travel expenses. Section 11(a) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to use, with their consent, the available services, equipment, personnel, and facilities of agencies and instrumentalities of the Federal Government on a reimbursable basis when appropriate. Paragraph (b) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce in carrying out the functions vested in him by the act, to place not to exceed two positions in grades 16, 17, or 18 of the general schedule established by the Classification Act of 1949, such positions to be in addition to those authorized for such grades under such act. Section 12 provides that if any provision of the act is held to be invalid, the remainder shall still be valid. Section 13 provides that the act shall become effective upon the date of enactment but the pilotage provisions shall not become effective until the 1st day of the 4th month following the issuance of regulations pursuant thereto. The effect of this section would be that of permitting hearings and other preparations for the implementation of the act to commence immediately upon the enactment of the proposed bill. The regulations and arrangements necessary to carry out the provisions of the bill could then be developed and given effect on the 1st day of the 4th month following the issuance of regulations. THE LINCOLN ELECTRIC CO., Cleveland, Ohio, February 22, 1960. COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, GENTLEMEN: It is my understanding that a 1-day hearing has been called for 10 a.m., Tuesday, February 23, for the consideration of S. 3019, the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960. I am very much interested in the prompt passage of the bill as written. Inasmuch as I am not able to come to Washington on this date, I am transmitting 35 copies of my statement herewith. I have asked Mr. Lee C. Hinslea, counsel for the Shipping Federation of Canada, to represent me in any way which may be necessary in order that this statement may be properly filed with the committee. Thank you for your consideration. ARTHUR W. TODD, Director, Purchase Engineering. STATEMENT IN FAVOR OF S. 3019 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 represented 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, S. 3019 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 "U.S. 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. Sections 9 (b) and (c) avoid conflict with existing regulations whereby U.S. 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 |