more than $1,000 for each violation or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both." On page 14, line 20, the word “a” should be inserted after the word "has"; and on page 25, line 18, the word "grade" is misspelled. We have no basis for determining whether the funding provisions of section 30 are adequate, and therefore make no comment as to them. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, HARRISON LOESCH, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. NATIONAL COUNCIL ON MARINE RESOURCES AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. GARMATZ: This is in response to your request for our views and recommendations on H.R. 15041, a bill "To provide for a coordinated national boating safety program". The National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development supports the need for legislation to improve boating safety in the United States. This includes developing in greater detail the respective roles of the Secretary of Transportation and the individual States in the determination and enforcement of standards; expandng the scope of the provisions to encompass a wider array of boat types and contingencies; and providing for greater involvement by the several components of the non-federal sector in the implementation of the proposed Act. We find that H.R. 15041 reflects these goals and therefore support this bill and endorse the detailed comments submitted by the United States Coast Guard on November 20. We believe that H.R. 15041 should create a viable framework on which can be built the strong, comprehensive national boating safety program required to provide maximum protection for the many individuals who are using our coastal water in rapidly increasing numbers. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, E. L. DILLON, Acting Executive Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., March 19, 1970. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Secretary has asked me to reply to your letter of December 4, 1969, requesting comment on H.R. 15041, a bill "To provide for a coordinated national boating safety program." The Department of State has no objection to the proposed legislation from the standpoint of foreign policy. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, H. G. TORBERT, Jr., Acting Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., June 12, 1970. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Secretary has asked me to reply to your letter of May 4, 1970, concerning H.R. 15041, the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1970, in which you asked for our comments on the suggestion that the bill be amended 49-610 0-70-4 to include a prohibition on the importation of lifesaving devices sold in the United States. We appreciate the broad approach to this problem and sensibility to trade policy implications manifest in your letter. We agree with your view that the Boat Safety bill would be an inappropriate vehicle to address the issue of limitations on the importation of lifesaving devices for boats. The Department of State would be opposed to the amendment mentioned above, because such a provision would certainly be regarded by our trading partners as an unjustifiable barrier to trade. The institution of such a measure would not be consistent with the efforts that the United States is making both bilaterally and multilaterally to persuade other countries to remove the resstrictions they impose on our exports and, in general, to adopt freer trade policies. These efforts have been largely embodied in the multilateral General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, article XI of which generally prohibits non-tariff restrictions on imports. An exception in article XX permits import restrictions to protect human life, but only to the extent they can be justified for this purpose as distinguished from economic protectionism. Moreover, article III, subject to the same exception in article XX, prohibits discrimination in the permissible use within the United States of imported articles compared with the use of like domestic articles, and a note allows parties to exclude a foreign article from importation if, but only if, the use of the like domestic article is prohibited. Consequently, an unqualified prohibition against the importation or use of foreign safety devices would raise questions of consistency with our international obligations, whereas section 11 of H.R. 15041 recognizes, in a reasonable manner, the importance of both the strict enforcement of safety standards, and the implementation of our foreign commercial policy and international commitments. As far as the provisions of H.R. 15041 as drafted are concerned the Department perceives no objection in principle to the requirement that imported boats and associated equipment conform to the standards applicable to similar domestic products. From the trade policy standpoint, of course, we would like to see such standards implemented in such a way that imported products would have the same opportunity to qualify for sales in the United States as domestic products. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the Committee. Sincerely, DAVID M. ABSHIRE, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine, and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 15041, "To provide for a coordinated national boating safety program." The bill would prohibit the manufacture, sale, introduction into interstate commerce, or the importation into the United States, of any "boat" or "associated equipment" unless it is in compliance with the regulations, to be promulgated by the Department of Transportation, establishing standards covering design, construction, performance, and other factors, and requiring or permitting seals or other devices for the purpose of evidencing compliance with applicable regulations. This Department takes no position on the merits of enactment of the bill. It is our view, however, that the additional tasks which would undoubtedly be required of Customs in aiding the enforcement of the proposed law could not be absorbed with present staffing limitations. The Department was advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there was no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of an identical report to the Senate Committee on Commerce on S. 3199, an identical bill. Sincerely yours, ROY T. ENGLERT, Acting General Counsel. Mr. CLARK. I would like to call Louis Freed, who is Congressman Monagan's staff director who cannot be with us this morning, he was called suddenly back to Connecticut. So we are very happy to have you pinch-hit for your Congressman. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN S. MONAGAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, PRESENTED BY LOUIS FREED, STAFF DIRECTOR Mr. FREED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the staff administrator of the Special Studies Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations. For several years now the special studies subcommittee has held extensive hearings on recreational boating safety. We have done this in connection with the economy and efficiency of Coast Guard operations, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Monagan, who was called away to Connecticut early this morning on an emergency call, expresses his regret that he cannot be here before you. Mr. Monagan wishes me to express support of the bill introduced by Mr. Garmatz, the distinguished chairman of this committee. Mr. Garmatz' bill, H.R. 15041, and Mr. Monagan's bill H.R. 15140, are identical. When Mr. Monagan introduced his bill he made several points that are worth repeating at this time. As the pressures of our complex society make their burden felt, we seek release in some form of recreation. Today, one such form of release is recreational boating-a recreation growing in popularity with amazing speed, so that on any given weekend duing the boating season one can find millions of Americans sailing or cruising on the Nation's waters. It has been predicted that by 1975-just 5 years from now-at least 50 million people will be enjoying recreational boating. Ten years from now, Mr. Chairman, in 1980-with greater leisure and disposable income, coupled with more available water recreation areas it is entirely likely that more than 60 million Americans will have discovered the pleasures of recreational boating. Recognizing the problems growing out of this increase in recreational activity, the Special Studies Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, of which Mr. Monagan is chairman, held hearings on July 31, 1967, and July 1, 1968. The purpose of these hearings was to evaluate the Coast Guard's administration of its statutory responsibilities for boating safety. Mr. Chairman, the results of these hearings are relevant to the proceedings before your committee and highlight the need for early enactment of new statutory authority. The report of the special studies subcommittee of March 4, 1968, recommended that the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee give consideration to the possible need for revision of present statutes to accomplish greater recreational boating safety. The hearings our subcommittee held which led us to this recommendation suggested that revision might embrace such matters as applying safety standards at the boat manufacturers level, broadening existing numbering requirements and licensing operators of motorboats. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Monagan is delighted to see that your committee has incorporated all but one of these recommendations in the pending legislation. But even that one the licensing of motorboat operators-is included to the extent that the bill permits States, when they are the issuing authority, to require that the operator of a numbered vessel hold a valid safey certificate issued under terms and conditions set by the issuing authority. The hearings we have held convinced the committee that licensing is necessary for boating safety. It is Mr. Monagan's understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the Coast Guard, recognizing the validity of our recommendation on operator licensing, is now reviewing completely its stand on this highly important matter. Our subcommittee hopes that their studies will eventually lead to some form of compulsory education and certification for motorboat operators. In 1958, your committee pioneered a move to involve State and local jurisdictions for the first time in the problem of recreational boating. You established a requirement for both uniformity and reciprocity among Federal and State boating laws. This principle recognized that the Federal Government does not have exclusive interest in recreational boating safety, but must share this interest with the States. Hearings before our committee led us to conclude that the Coast Guard needed to improve its leadership and liaison with the States, and to accelerate implementation of the provisions of the 1958 act. In particular, we were interested in seeing more Federal/State cooperative agreements and greater conformity with the provisions of the Model State Boating Act, leading in turn to greater uniformity and reciprocity. Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard has responded well to the criticisms of our subcommittee. Today, agreements have been consummated with 41 of the 53 jurisdictions. (These 53 jurisdictions include Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and Washington, D.C.) Mr. Chairman, Mr. Monagan feels that the financial assistance provision of the bill before this committee is an essential move, especially when one considers the continuing need for greater uniformity and reciprocity among and between Federal and State jurisdictions, and also the requirement for greater State participation in boating safety programs. This financial assistance provision recognizes State law enforcement operations on waters of concurrent jurisdiction, and the increased involvement of State and local officials on such waters. Logically, of course, responsibility for safety on our waterways is assigned to the Coast Guard. However, the State can assume some of those safety functions that require direct contact with the boatman, particularly law enforcement on local navigable waters. Concerning this matter of jurisdiction between Federal and State Governments, our committee felt that it also was important for the Coast Guard to expand its liaison with other Federal agencies having programs directly related to boating safety-in particular, agencies having jurisdiction over bodies of water used by recreational boatmen. Mr. Chairman, in this connection, we found in our national parks there were a great many accidents and there were not really a great many safety measures being enforced. Thus, we felt that if Coast Guard law were applied it would be a real plus for boating safety. The proposed bill expands applicability of the law and hence, authority of the Coast Guard to all waters over which the United States has jurisdiction. This would lend further impetus to coordination of effort among all Federal agencies having responsibilities affecting the recreational boatman. The broadened jurisdiction should also lead to greater uniformity of action among the various Federal agencies. Another problem our committee uncovered was the Coast Guard's method of administering citations to boatmen for violations of the law. Boatmen on our waters should expect to receive speedy and fair justice when they are cited for violations of boating safety practices. Yet, our committee found that the Coast Guard's penalty procedures were rather cumbersome and, in many instances, ineffective, particularly with respect to reckless or negligent operation. For example, it is necessary for the Coast Guard to assess the maximum penalty for any violation of the Motorboat Act of 1940. Mitigation is possible only after the boatman has requested it. Also, delinquent penalties and criminal violations must be prosecuted before a U.S. commissioner whose higher priority cases virtually assure delay in processing. Penalty provisions in the bill before this committee specifically authorize mitigation, remission, or compromise, and permit referral of civil penalties of not more than $200 to a Federal magistrate under that new system. Mr. Chairman, we have found that the penalties provision is one of the most important provisions for getting real law enforcement in boating safety. Mr. Monagan feels that this bill before you goes a long way in solving this particular problem. Several considerations lend a sense of urgency to early passage of the proposed bill. For one, we are losing boatmen at the rate of four per day, while many more are involved in serious accidents which result in injuries and severe property damage. During the months of May through September of 1968-the latest year for which we have figures-the casualties were 195 persons killed in May, 169 killed in June, 198 killed in July, 158 killed in August, and 130 killed in September. Those add up to a lot of casualties, Mr. Chairman, and these are only the killed. Mr. GARMATZ. Where did you obtain these figures? Mr. FREED. These are authentic Coast Guard figures, Mr. Garmatz. Mr. GARMATZ. Thank you. Mr. FREED. Another consideration, Mr. Chairman, is that our committee found a pressing need to expand the Coast Guard's authority to establish minimum safety standards for boats and associated equipment. |