That should be on the Federal level because by being on the Federal level you will collaborate with the States and have States give their arbitrary consideration of this matter and you will get nowhere in the long run.

Now, in 1958, when this bill was up, we talk about recessed transoms. I proposed that there be no recessed transoms on boats, that all outboard motors should have extended shafts, that all boats shall have abrasive decks and areas to walk on, that bouyant cushions should be eliminated as a safety measure.

Now in our racing organization we will not permit anybody to participate in our races with bouyant cushions, they are not a lifesaving device and, therefore, should be completely eliminated.

There is no proper way to put them on and there is no adequate way to be saved by them. The best that can be said is that it might hold the body up if it dies, but that is about all.

Now for the allocation of funds, I think you are opening up one of the greatest means of getting in on something, particularly when you say Federal assistance for organizations that give boating programs.

I might give that earmark of one organization; that is, a antional nonprofit organization. I would say that that could permit many organizations to grow, run schools and the like as such, and that particular figure would have unlimited possibilities; beyond the intent and purpose.

Now, as for this idea of $5 million for a 5-year period to encourage the local boating administrators to carry out boating programs, that that could have unlimited possibilities, also.

Now, in the State of Massachusetts, besides the State getting all the money from registrations and the like, they are getting over $200,000 a year from a tax on the motor fuel and consequently, they are getting plenty of money now for what they have to do.

This particular bill needs very, very careful scrutiny before you even go into putting such a program as that through.

Now, there is another point that is being brought out here, it may be a subterfuge as to how to get at it because when it is stated in its simplest terms, licensing of operators, it looks to me that under another term they call it valid safety certificate.

Now, what in the world does that mean? We are not going to go into the point of licensing of operators because we are against it. My time is limited but at the same time, I do want to say that this particular item here, valid safety certificate, means that everybody that is on the water that operates a boat, sailboat or otherwise, could be subject to a valid safety certificate and probably have a great deal more experience than the people who are issuing the certificates.

It also provides what I consider and have testified before the State of Massachusetts committees it provides a false sense of security for anybody operating a boat to think that they have a certificate and then go out and do what they want to when in reality they may not even have the experience.

They could have paper understanding and the like, but not one jota of experience, and that is what counts more than anything else in any law that you put through.

In this particular case, I want to say this: This Federal Boating Act of 1958 has been in existence since 1958. There is no uniformity which was intended by the original bill. That has got to be corrected first in any measure.

The way I see that it can be corrected first, let the Coast Guard have control and jurisdiction over all boats on the tidal water and say that is what it should be; if you want to come into our area, you have got to conform to our standards and that is it.

If you don't do that, it does not make any difference how much you have written into this act.

I congratulate the Coast Guard for taking the first step to getting at the industry for any of you people who have gone to the boating shows lately, if you have not seen many hazards built into these boats you probably don't know how to examine boats.

But I will say to you that some of the material and some of the craft that is being delivered to the boating public is not fit to be on the

water.

Now we talk about these capsizings. There was a time when capsizing was only supposed to happen if the sailboat overturned. În my comments in 1958, I made a definite statement that no boat over 10 feet in length should be on the water without a skeg. The skeg is the greatest stabilizer for a boat with a motor on it or any other type, even rowboat.

If I would row a boat without a skeg on it, I would have a tough job keeping it straight. These people without a skeg can slip and when they slip that is where the trouble lies.

These are fundamental facts that must be carried out.

At one boat show after making certain statements, a marine inspection officer of the district asked me if I would go to the boat show with him, and I did. Right at the foot of the stairs was a boat and I said, there is what I mean. Even on inboard motors the stuffing box is right outside of the bottom and only a brace (strut) holds the propeller

shaft.

Consequently, that boat is without proper control arrangements. Those things must be brought into account. If those things are not brought into account, there will be capsizings. It may interest you to have a little bit of background.

I come before you and I talk to you but others come to you and they have a card. This last year I finished 20 years on the race committee of the Massachusetts Bay Yacht Club Association and this last year as its chairman. Some 3,178 boats crossed our starting line. Over the 20 years, nearly 65,000 boats have crossed our starting line.

In 20 years, 65,000 boats, one fatality.

Now, may I say our club's association long before this Federal Boating Act was giving courses we have standard rules and regulations that participants have got to go by.

Don't jeopardize or don't penalize the majority of the boating people for the few that are getting in trouble. If you will take these actions that are happening, capsizings and the like, they are overpowered boats, not properly constructed, and at the same time, nothing is being done to rectify the condition.

I probably as an individual have inspected more accidents on the water than any person that I know of. I have seen what has happened.

I am not going to go into this because I want you to know that I accept the privilege you have granted me for being here for coming from such a distance, but I do want you to know that I will write this whole thing up in detail and be glad to send you a copy so that you will have every phase of this as written down and have a chance to analyze it from my point of view.

I do feel that there is no reason, to my way of thinking, in getting all excited about this teriffic accident rate when you are figuring on 8 million to 9 million boatowners, 43 million people out on boats.

You have got to get right down to the fundamental fact and that is this: Any person who steps in a boat, be it an oceanliner or a small recreational boat, steps into that boat with risks and hazards.

When you take a small boat, the risks and hazards are multiplied. Therefore, no matter what law you get, no matter what program you get, there is going to be that level of accident.

You can say to yourself, what is the case of negligence above that which we are to expect? Then build your laws around that.

But your basis must be, get to the industry. Don't deprive the man who owns a boat from fixing it if he wants to. Don't put oppressive and restrictive laws in that will break down the boating fraternity. Give the marine tradesman a good product that he can stand behind and be proud to sell.

Thank you very much.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much.

Any questions?

Mr. KEITH. I appreciate having John Murphy here. When you send the committee your prepared statement confirming what you have told us here, send me an extra copy, would you, John?

Mr. MURPHY. I will be glad to.

I might say this, gentlemen, before closing: Please do what you can to have local hearings on this bill. In the area of Boston, within 30 or 40 miles of Boston, where there is a terrific concentration of boats, we did not have a hearing the last bill and it is an absolute necessity if you want to get down to the basis of this and get away from the influence that is close to it. Get down to the people who operate these boats and have local hearings.

Thank you very much.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Murphy, I think your testimony is helpful to the committee because I think we certainly do not want to impose regulations that are more than necessary, but, of course, all of us do recognize that boating has increased to such an amount that we want to make sure that the safety features are adequately taken care of.

But I think your points are well taken and I am sure the committee will give them consideration.

Thank you very much.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you.

Mr. CLARK. We appreciate your coming and testifying before this committee this morning.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I will send the information.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock in room 1334.

(The information follows:)

CHAPTER 558. AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE TAXATION OF BOATS AND AIRPLANES UNDER THE SALES AND USE TAX LAW.

Section 26A. The director of the division of motorboats shall not issue a certificate of number for a motorboat under section three of chapter ninety B and the aeronautics commission shall not register a federal certificate for an aircraft under section forty-nine of chapter ninety, except in the case of a renewal by the same owner, until the owner shall furnish evidence, on such forms as shall be prescribed by the commissioner, that any tax due under the provisions of this chapter has been paid or that no such tax is due.

SECTION 5. Section 28 of said chapter 641, as appearing in section 2 of chapter 757 of the acts of 1967, is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph :— Where a trade-in of an airplane is recieved by a dealer in airplanes, who has registered his federal dealer's aircraft registration, upon the sale of another airplane to a consumer or user, the tax shall be imposed only on the difference between the sales price of the airplane purchased and the amount allowed on the airplane traded in on such purchase. When any airplane traded in is subsequently sold to a consumer or user, the tax provided for in this section shall apply.

SECTION 6. This act shall apply to sales of boats and airplanes made and certificates of number of motorboats issued and registration of federal aircraft certificates made on and after its effective date.

Approved July 24, 1969(Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, March 24, 1970, in room 1334.)

RECREATIONAL BOAT SAFETY

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD, COAST AND

GEODETIC SURVEY, AND NAVIGATION, OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1334, Longworth Building, Hon. Frank M. Clark (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. CLARK. The subcommittee will come to order. We have as our first witness the Honorable Congressman John Dellenback of Oregon. John, if you will, it would please the committee if you would take the witness stand.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DELLENBACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you.

Mr. CLARK. We are very happy to have you with us this morning and you are one of our stalwarts on the committee and we don't know what we would do without you.

Now that is a darned good campaign contribution, if I ever knew

one.

Mr. DELLENBACK. It is crossing party lines, Mr. Chairman, and I am doubly grateful. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to appear before the subcommittee this morning and comment briefly on this question of safety in the field of boating.

Mr. Bob Rittenhouse, an Oregon constituent and president-elect of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators has requested my assistance in placing before your subcommittee the proposed amendments to H.R. 15041 of the national association.

These amendments present the collective thinking of these State boating law administrators and I am hopeful this early submission will enable the members of the subcommittee and staff personnel to make a full analysis of the merits of these proposals.

In this I am informed that there are tentative subcommittee plans to conduct hearings on this important piece of legislation at a later date and in other areas of the country. The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators has indicated a desire to appear at such later time as would be convenient and will be prepared to comment fully on these proposals and proposed amendments at that time.