Mr. SCHWARTZ. Although we are not here taking a formal position on operator licensing, we feel that States desiring to establish a licensing program should be able to do so under the Federal financial assistance provisions of this bill. We urge the committee to make it clear in its report that such a program would qualify. We believe that such an experiment by a State would provide results which would be helpful to the entire boating community.

We also concur with the other major objective of the bill which consolidates into one comprehensive boating act provisions of the Motorboat Act of 1950 and Federal Boating Act of 1958 with the new authorizations of the pending legislation. Furthermore, it provides for new flexibility that will permit changes to be made as boating conditions and technology change by placing authority in the Secretary to specify standards and equipment in lieu of the detailed specifications of present statutory law.

We also support the numbering of all vessels propelled by machinery; the Good Samaritan clause, whereby a boatman may render assistance to another in distress without fear of nonnegligent liability; the authority to order a skipper off the waters for violation of regulations or under hazardous conditions; and the complete preemption of Federal regulations to name the more important new provisions.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note for the committee my feeling that this proposed legislation presents a real opportunity to move forward in a significant way toward meeting the growing safety problem in recreational boating. As important as the Federal Boating Act of 1958 was to recreational boating-initiating boat registration and statistical reporting the proposed act before you will far eclipse the 1958 act by its broadly mounted attack on the causes of deaths, accidents and property damage, by its substantive programs aimed at ignorance, carelessness and recklessness.

This measure is the first major piece of legislation directly concerning the boating community in 12 years. And, although most boatmen are hesitant to seek further governmental regulations, we have come to learn from our members across the counter over the past few years that a large part of this community would like to see legislation of the nature being proposed here by the pending bill.

On behalf of our association's members, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of your committee for giving us the opportunity to present our views.

If you or other committee members have any questions, I would be happy to respond as best I can.

I would like to add, in addition to my prepared comments, two other comments.

One, I would like to propose as a technical thing but one which could be a problem someday in the future, an amendment to section 3(d), to modify the word "consideration," so that we don't run into a situation where we might possibly find that guests on board a recreational boat who contribute gasoline, beer, or liquor in the usual course of being a guest put the host in a position of carrying a passenger for hire, and I think we have an ambiguity here, one which we discussed earlier with the Coast Guard people and one which really could be

a pitfall especially should a private lawsuit develop and try to take advantage of the regulation concerning passengers for hire.

We know it is not intended to cover the situation of a tankful of gas or a case of liquor for a weekend trip and I would like to see some wording changed here to make that clear.

My other comment would be, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that we do have an appropriations problem this year. We have a shortage of money all the way around, I guess. But, consistent with what I stated in my prepared testimony, I think the most important part of the bill is setting up of standards and some sort of control over what is being put on the waterways and what is being sold to the consumer, and we are very much in a consumer-protection atmosphere, witness the raids going on with other bills pending before Congress, and I think this would be the most significant step for protecting the consumer in the boating area.

I think it would take a minimum amount of funds. Of course, it will take funds to support the Coast Guard in the increased manpower and time which would be necessary to administer it, but certainly it would not involve the dirct expenditure to the States of the $5 million.

I think if we remove this bugaboo, we would perhaps have a better chance of seeing the bill or the standard section of the bill passed this year and perhaps a number of other technical sections, including the consolidation of all three acts that involve recreational boating.

I would say that we certainly would support any measure which would at least temporarily eliminate the $5 million bugaboo, if necessary, in order to see the rest of this bill go through if it would enhance it.

I think the setting up of standards is an extremely important thing and could only supplement the safety measures that are now in existence and they do not depend, I don't see that they depend, on the State boating programs which also, of course, should be passed, we feel, but which may keep the entire thing from going through.

The other thing is that I know boating doesn't seem to be too urgent a matter to the population as a whole, many of them considering it a luxury matter, and, of course, we are talking of a definition of recreational boating, but it is growing and I don't think we can ignore that fact, and as it grows we are going to get into a more and more intolerable situation. I think we have the opportunity at fairly minimum cost relative to other safety programs in this country to do something about it now.

This bill was first introduced in 1968. We first talked about it in 1967. As you are probably aware, the House Operations Committee came out with a very strong report urging that something be done and steps be taken. That is now 3 years ago. Next year will be 4 years, and right at the moment I must confess it doesn't look like our boating bill is at the top of the list of urgent items.

I think it would be regrettable if we have to wait several more years before we get some sort of additional regulation in this field.

I would urge the chairman and the committee to put this some place on the list of matters which might possibly permit it to move ahead in this session of Congress and to take advantage of all testimony we have heard and the urgency which all of us feel.

As Congressman Monagan said before this committee in his statement, "We are losing boatmen at the rate of four per day, many more involved in serious accidents which result in injury and severe property damage.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Schwartz.

How would you feel about numbering all vessels, not just those propelled by machinery?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. We would have no objection to numbering all vessels.

There could be an administration problem of where the cutoff is. I am not sure how that would be defined. The Coast Guard people may have more idea where the cutoff would be. I am sure we don't want to take on the administration burden of numbering rafts. I am not sure we ought to number canoes, either, I think we can get to a nuisance point with the boatowner without serving any function.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, and we are delighted that you came here and presented your testimony this morning because you are one that is supporting this bill almost 100 percent and we do appreciate your help very much.

Thank you for coming.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Rittenhouse has asked to come back this morning. He has some new ideas on a couple of amendments.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. RITTENHOUSE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BOATING LAW ADMINISTRATORS Resumed

Mr. RITTENHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I am Robert Rittenhouse, director of Oregon State Marine Board, and president of the National Association of Boating Law Administrators.

Yesterday our association presented a supplement to previous amendments and today I would like to speak on sectoin 3 of definitions.

In our proposed amendments submitted yesterday, we recommended that on page 4, after subparagraph 10, a new subparagraph be added, and this would read:

"Safety certificate means a certificate evidencing that the holder thereof has successfully completed a State-approved course of instruction in boating safety."

Following the introduction of this proposal, we did find that, while our intention was to define a safety certificate, that we were omitting the possibility that this could refer to different types of certificates, such as a certificate of inspection of the vessel, and by indicating that a safety certificate meant completing a State-approved course, we by no means wish to minimize the importance of a certificate, safety certificate, issued by the Coast Guard Auxiliary, because in the State we look to these organizations for help in our boating safety education.

So, in behalf of our association, we respectfully request the committee to permit us to withdraw this proposed amendment and would recommend that section 3 (b) as is now in the printed bill.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, sir. Thanks for coming back this morning and giving us this advice on your amendment.

Mr. CLARK. We would like at this time to put Mrs. Mink's, Congresswoman from Hawaii, testimony in the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. PATSY T. MINK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Mrs. MINK. Chairman Clark and distinguished members of the subcommittee: I welcome this opportunity to present my views on behalf of boating safety legislation. In my view, this is one of the most neglected fields of comprehensive basic legislation, and I congratulate the subcommittee for delving into this important matter so thoroughly and with such diligence.

I applaud the objectives of H.R. 15041 which, among other things, would authorize the Secretary of the Department having jurisdiction over the Coast Guard to issue and enforce safety regulations and standards for the safety and greater pleasure of the increasing multitudes of our citizens who are taking to the waters of the United States for recreation and commerce.

This legislation will have special meaning to boating enthusiasts all across our nation. It will have great effect in Hawaii, the only island State, where boating is a way of life and a major means of transportation, as well as a favorite form of recreation. Our citizens will benefit greatly by the new standards of safety to be provided

under this bill.

There is one aspect of particular concern to which I would call the subcommittee's attention. Although the bill authorizes the Secretary to require the installation of various types of safety equipment on boats, including navigational lights, it does not specifically mandate that such lights will be required equipment on all boats that might conceivably need them at one time or another.

Because of their fundamental importance to boating safety, I recommend that the subcommittee amend H.R. 15041 to establish a requirement that navigational lights be installed on all boats which may enter open waters.

Presently, small boats are permitted to operate in United States waters without navigation lights, providing that they are used only during daylight hours. The report of boarding, form CG 4100, used by the Coast Guard to report an inspection of a small boat for safety, does not require navigation lights. Members of boating clubs believe that this policy is highly inadequate.

There are a number of ways in which small boats may occasionally be operated at night even if the owner's intent is otherwise

1. Boats originally intended for only day operation may encounter occasions when they might have to be used after sundown. To juryrig a navigation light in a hurry on a small boat is almost impossible, so unless such lights are required as original equipment, we will encounter instances of small boats attempting to navigate in the dark without lights.

2. A boat may be out at sea during daylight hours and fail to return to port before dark due to engine trouble or other difficulty.

3. In time of tidal wave warnings, which occur rather frequently in Hawaii, boats are taken out to sea to prevent damage from waves. If the warning comes during the night, lights or no lights, hundreds of small boats will make a mad scramble out of the harbor. In Hawaii, this is a very dangerous operation.

I believe that such incidents cause needless loss of life and injury. With permission, I would like to insert in the hearing record several news items describing the loss of two men from Maui, Hawaii, who set sail in a 20-foot sailboat without provisions, radio, or light, and were never heard from again. They wanted to sail around a nearby island, and although they were expert seamen they died, in all probability, due to an inadequately-equipped boat. One article is headlined, "Ocean Claims An Old Friend In Last Battle".

(The articles referred to follow :)

OCEAN CLAIMS AN OLD FRIEND IN LAST BATTLE

(By Keith Haugen, Maui Bureau Chief)

LAHAINA, MAUI.-The ocean has tried before. This time it appears to have been successful in claiming Lahaina's Larry Windley.

Windley, 36, had battled the ocean for years, won a few rounds and lost a few-but always he loved it.

He was, at one time, an underwater photographer and a professional diverone of the best. He knew the ocean better than most men twice his age. He had lived through more harrowing experiences in it than almost anyone alive today. But last Thursday, he and a companion, St. George Bryan, had set out from Makena on a small catamaran-never to be seen again.

The two had planned a short sail several hours around nearby Molokini Island. They carried no provisions and the small boat was not even equipped with lights, radio equipment or life jackets.

The search for the pair was abandoned once and later resumed, only to be called off Tuesday night for the last time.

Coast Guard, Air Force and Civil Air Patrol planes, along with the Coast Guard rescue ships, had not been able to find even a trace of the two.

Windley, originally from North Carolina, came to Maui in 1957 after he resigned his commission in the Marine Corps. He was not married.

With Jack Ackerman and John Stuart, he founded Maui Divers and was credited with starting the black coral industry in the Islands. For years, the ocean provided him with his livelihood and he took his fair share from it.

On one dive, nearly 10 years ago, he was struck by the bends and although lucky to be alive he was paralyzed from the neck down.

He fought it, and slowly regained control of his muscles until he finally became able to move about quite well with the aid of crutches. His legs remained almost useless.

In 1964, while he was still recuperating, he went for a sail aboard the Ale Ale Kai VI, and the 68-foot catamaran developed a leak and nearly sank. Along with four others, he was rescued by the Coast Guard.

On another trip, returning from Oahu, the boat he was riding in overturned and Windley's footlocker and all he owned, went to the bottom.

It was then that Mauians showed their love for this newcomer. Donations poured in soon totaling more than $700-giving him a new start.

But no longer able to make a living from his diving, he was forced to turn to something else.

He was one of the organizers of the Lahaina Whaling Spree, served one year as chairman and was said to have been targely responsible for its success in other years.

He pushed for the restoration of Lahaina to what it had looked like in the 1800's and he opposed the modern high-rise buildings that could spoil what he hoped Lahaina would become.

He was described by many-in more recent years as an "angry young man." He attended every public meeting and hearing and while others chose to sit silently by he spoke his mind.