Mr. DENARO. The dollars are coming from the boatmen and we feel we should have equal representation. It is a very fair request and I feel the committee should go along with it.

Mr. CORRADO. I think the committee might be a little reluctant to lock it into a statute so the Coast Guard's hands would be completely tied. On the other hand, it does seem that the language in the bill is a little loose and maybe there should be some consideration given to tightening that up and being a little more specific as to the interests that should be represented on this council and the proportion.

That problem has been recognized and we hope is being dealt with. Mr. DENARO. I am glad to hear that.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Keith?

Mr. KEITH. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to find that the Massachusetts Bay Yacht Clubs Association is represented here by Mr. Denaro. I will read his testimony with interest and if you have occasion to want to supplement what you have said in your written testimony by afterthoughts, I would encourage you to correspond with me as the Massachusetts member of this committee. Mr. DENARO. I definitely will.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much.

Mr. DENARO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLARK. We have next with us Henry F. O'Connell, National Boating Federation, Boston, Mass.

STATEMENT OF HENRY F. O'CONNELL, PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL BOATING FEDERATION

Mr. O'CONNELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: On behalf of the National Boating Federation we thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning to testify on this legislation.

My name is Henry F. O'Connell, of 50 State Street, Boston, Mass. I have the honor to be president of the National Boating Federation, which is composed of amateur boating organization representing over half a million persons cruising the waters of virtually very State in the Union and adjacent high seas.

NBF is the only organization of its kind, created to give the boating public a responsible voice at the national level. We have nothing to sell and no ax to grind. Our sole objective is improvement of our great national pastime through better communications between our members and Government agencies, more effective safety education, better sailors, better boats, better laws.

My remarks today are addressed to certain of the provisions of H.R. 15041. As an elected officer I am directed to present the consensus reached by delegates at our annual and semiannual conferences, most recently held in the Chicago Yacht Club, April 1970, and the Boston Yacht Club last October. With the exception of certain changes, which I will discuss in the order of their importance to us, our members are in general support of the bill and in full accord with the need for it.

1. The subject we consider of primary importance is the threat of universal operator licensing. The National Boating Federation has consistently opposed such licensing for reasons stated in the following

resolution, which was adopted unanimously at our annual meeting April 15, 1970, at the Chicago Yacht Club:

Whereas the greatest percentage of boating accidents involves experienced operators who could easily pass any test required for licensing and

Whereas careful analysis of agitation for operator licensing reveals it is largely traceable (1) to the erroneous equating of motorboats with motor vehicles which actually operate under entirely different conditions, or (2) to the antics of a few reckless boat operators and habitual offenders whom tougher enforcement of existing laws could teach or beach without penalizing the responsible majority, and

Whereas no equitable examination can be devised for all types and sizes of watercraft in all waters under all conditions, and without such a test the imposition of universal operator licensing would be meaningless and result in nothing more than another tax on the already overtaxed boatman, and

Whereas the burdens of recordkeeping and license enforcement would require employment of many additional personnel afloat and ashore, the costs of which would also have to be passed along to boatmen, and

Whereas the requirement of an operator's license would undermine the voluntary safety education programs which cost little or nothing and have proven so successful in reducing accidents, and

Whereas for the above reasons the National Boating Federation at its 1967, 1968 and 1969 annual spring meetings in the Chicago Yacht Club called upon the Commandant of the Coast Guard to resist operator licensing; and

Whereas at its fall meeting at the Boston Yacht Club on October 11, 1969 the Federation called upon the drafters of the proposed Federal Boat Safety Act to avoid all mention of operator licensing or wording meaning the same, and

Whereas section 22 of the proposed act authorizes the states to set up safety programs that could call for certification of operators, which is backdoor licensing; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the National Boating Federation call upon the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee to delete section 22 entirely from the proposed Federal Boat Safety Act as needless, costly, and detrimental to the very safety efforts it is intended to enhance.

We feel that section 22 could be misconstrued as encouraging safety certification of operators, which is just another name for operator licensing. Yet statistics show that operator licensing would not have reduced the incidence of boating casualties.

We fear that if the subject matter of section 22 were to remain in the law, it would mean that operator licensing would be included ast part of a boating safety program by many States under section 26 (b). We would prefer to see universal operator licensing excluded by Federal legislation.

NBF recently published a little folder called "The Case Against Universal Operator Licensing." With the committee's approval I should like to include this is the record.

(The document follows:)

THE CASE AGAINST UNIVERSAL OPERATOR LICENSING

The National Boating Federation is an alliance of state and regional boating organizations. Chartered in Washington, D.C. as a non-profit croporation, the federation speaks for over half a million persons boating from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. NBF actions are the result of a concensus of experienced boatmen, providing a responsible voice of the boating public.

The question of licensing operators of all motorboats is raised perennially, possibly because automobile drivers are licensed but pleasure boatmen are not. However, there is no similarity between driving a car and operating a boat. Also, who wants the kind of safety that driver's licenses have brought to our highways!

The same proponents of operator licensing are back again this year, with renewed demands and in one case an alleged survey that tends to confuse the uniformed. Whether or not this campaign is well intentioned or pursued for publicity or profit, it should be taken seriously and kept under constant analysis by the boatmen themselves, government officials and others truly interested and dedicated to the improvement of safety afloat and the development of boating as one of the last recereational frontiers of an over-regimented society. If licensing should be imposed, it is the opinion of the National Boating Federation that the nation's greatest family pastime would receive a severe setback, and safety afloat would be seriously impaired.

The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators has taken a position opposed to operator licensing after studies conducted by its standing Operator Controls Committee. The findings are contained in a lengthy formal report which has been kept up to date by the committee and is available to those who really want to know the issues.

The Coast Guard also has taken a stand in opposition to operator licensing until it can be shown that such licensing would be worth the cost and effort and that it would truly serve the cause of safety.

Industry is opposed to operator licensing on the same grounds.

Unfortunately, those who seek to impose operator licensing on the boating world ignore or are not aware of these previous studies or findings. Many have not even heard of NASBLA or NBF. In arguing their case in ignorance, they never say that the issues have been studied before by those most experienced and concerned and always turned down, nor do they list the reasons why this has been so.

Here are some of those reasons, compiled by NBF, whose member associations, representing over half a million persons boating in every state of the union, recently renewed its warning against operator licensing by a unanimous resolution!

1. Boating grows much faster than boating accidents. Statistics show the number of boats increased more than 20 percent during the last five years, while boating accidents increased only 8 percent.

2. Knowledge of the safety rules taught in the classroom and on the water is what makes boating safer and more enjoyable. Education, going hand in hand with knowledgeable enforcement, are the proven keys to safety on the water. 3. Boating education courses are offered free by the Coast Guard Auxiliary, Power Squadrons and others. These programs are being greatly expanded in 1970. But give the operator a license and he'll say: "I've got my license, why should I take the course?" It would pull the rug from under America's most effective boating safety program.

4. To issue a license without an examination would be just another tax on the already overtaxed and regulated boatman. If an adequate examination is attempted, how could it determine competence in the varying conditions of sea, weather, tides and currents offshore and inland, and in all sizes and types of vessels? Who would be the judge? How much additional personnel would have to be hired? How experienced would they have to be? Who would have the burden of the records?

5. What would be the cost of such a program to the government, which would pass it along to the individual operator? Would it mean $10 per license the first year, $12 the next and so on whenever money is needed or wages go up?

6. Would it do anything to improve boating safety? A license could be lifted for serious violations but how many such cases would there be, and wouldn't an appropriate fine or imprisonment do just as well? Maybe the problem is lack of enforcement of present laws, rather than the need for new ones that will be much harder to enforce.

7. Boats may have several operators in a single day. To determine that each one has a license while operating, how many times a day must the boat be stopped and boarded? Think of the nuisance caused the boating public; think of the astronomical cost of enforcing the licensing, and think of the futility of such a program.

8. Bikinis and bathing trunks don't have pockets. Where would these boatmen carry a license?

9. Licensing is not the best safety measure, and could lead to police harassment. It would drastically reduce the number of participants who spend millions. Why curtail such a safe family recreation?

10. If there is licensing, why just motorboats? Small boats, often without motors are the likeliest source and cause of casualties; (i.e.) no lights at night, tieing to buoys and obscuring them, overloading despite capacity plates, etc. Sailboats are a hazard in crowded waters, and some are as fast or faster than power cruisers. If licensing can be proven necessary, these would be the first people to be licensed ahead of power craft.

Mr. O'CONNELL. 2. Section 33 (a) provides for a National Boating Safety Advisory Council, a wise and useful provision. We have adopted the following resolution on this subject:

Whereas, H.R. 15041 and S. 3199, the proposed Federal Boat Safety Act, provides for the establishment of a Boating Safety Advisory Council to assist the Coast Guard in adopting safety standards and regulations for boats and associated equipment and other boat safety matters, and

Whereas, it is the Commandant's stated intention to appoint representatives of all levels of government, the boating industry and other persons having an interest in boating and boating safety to serve on this Council, and

Whereas, no one has a greater stake in boating and boating safety than the consumer or general boating public who will be directly affected by the standards and regulations adopted by the Coast Guard is consultation with the Boating Safety Advisory Council, and

Whereas, the general boating public is therefore clearly entitled to equal representation with government and industry on the Council, but the act is not specific about the proportions of representation of the various interests nor the total number of seats on the Council: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the National Boating Federation in meeting assembled at the Chicago Yacht Club, Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of April 1970, does hereby call upon the Congress of the United States and the Commandant of the Coast Guard in determining the composition of the Boating Safety Advisory Council under Section 33(a) of the proposed Federal Boat Safety Act to grant the general boating public membership that is equivalent in numbers to that granted to the states and industry, respectively (one third each); be it further

Resolved, That the criteria for the members appointed to the Council by the Commandant from the general boating public shall be that such appointees be experienced amateur boatmen as evidenced by (1) ownership and operation of a vessel, and (2) leadership in a representative non-income-producing boating association, yacht club or similar organization.

3. On the subject of the requirements for numbering that a State may adopt, we agree with section 23 which will prevent a State from imposing unrelated conditions for the issuance of a boat number.

4. The National Boating Federation also supports the numbering of all undocumented motorboats under section 17, and the requiring of lifesaving devices on all vessels except certain special-purpose vessels.

5. We would recommend the striking out of lines 18 through 21 of section 5(b) (2). The stricken material would allow regulations that would be an economic burden to owners of older vessels which will shortly be gone due to normal obsolescence.

6. Section 12(c) shifts the responsibility from the manufacturer (of an unsafe boat) to the innocent operator who merely "uses" the boat. We suggest this be changed to read that "no person may use a vessel knowing it to be in violation of this act ****"

7. Under section 10 we feel that no State should be allowed to require additonal safety equipment whether attached or not, even if unusual local conditions are involved, unless provision is made for comity. Traveling boatmen cannot be expected to know of unusual equipment requirements, purportedly to meet special local conditions. 8. Section 18(d) is fine with us. A 90-day minimum period of reciprocity is fair and desirable for a widely cruising and trailering boating public. Any lesser period would be a hardship on boatmen. It

would also amount to double taxation and hinder movement of boats from State to State. Especially is this true in colder areas of the country where the boating season is very short, and payment of one registration fee is enough.

9. If Federal grants are made to the States, we urge that payments for safety programs under sections 27 through 29 should not be reduced. As provided in section 28 (a), such reductions and termination could well leave some States without funds to continue the programs that the original Federal grants encouraged them to establish. Then, rather than discontinue programs they can no longer afford, these States would probably increase numbering fees, or soak the boatman in some other way. Legislative appropriations on the State level are rarely available to compensate for withdrawal of Federal funds.

10. Termination of use as authorized in section 13 should be narrowed to occasions where the boat and/or equipment are not in compliance. The phrase "used in violation" should be deleted as too broad and leaving too much up to the personal opinion of the boarding officer.

Finally, we would suggest that educational programs be given special emphasis as the major component to be considered in approving a State boating safety program. Education goes hand in hand with enforcement and should be given the highest priority for the prevention of accidents. Nothing contributes more to the safety and enjoyment of boating.

We thank you for the opportunity to present our views on safe boating to the committee today. We would be glad to work with the committee staff on this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. O'Connell. Isn't it true under section 22 the States may license?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, the particular State of which I am a resident has very broad authority now to do this under its own statute.

Mr. CLARK. There would be no Federal requirement for licensing of operators under this law, under section 22 ?

Mr. O'CONNELL. The reverse of this is the presence of it in the law because it becomes an item which is included in the funding of the States' boating program. We would like to have it out for that particular reason. If it is going to be a basis of funding, then States are going to get into the program.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much and thank you for your state

ment.

We have as our next witness Mr. Kurman. If not, then we will take John Murphy, chairman of the Legislative Committee, Yacht Racing Union of Massachusetts Bay.

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. MURPHY, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, YACHT RACING UNION OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY

Mr. MURPHY. I want to thank you very much for this opportunity to offer testimony for our association who are interested in promoting means applicable to provide for recreational boating safety.