Mr. LENNON. In the bill 17830, draw my attention to the subsection which gives the Coast Guard the authority to require State pilots to testify?

Mr. Dow. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. I agree with you that we need that, but call my attention to that pertinent part of the bill.

Mr. Dow. Section 4, page 4, line 13:

The Secretary is authorized to investigate any incident, accident, or willful or negligent act. . . . which affects or may affect safety of, on or in the ports, harbors, or navigable waters.

At the present time, if it occurs in the harbor of Portland, Maine— Mr. LENNON. He is authorized to issue subpenas and require witnesses, and if they don't accept the service of subpena, then to appeal to the district court to require it?

Mr. Dow. That is correct.

Mr. LENNON. On page 2, beginning on line 7, through 12, it is our recommendation that Secretary require pilotage for every American vessel under registry, et cetera. You do not believe that subsection 1 of section (b) of section 2 would give the Secretary that right do you? Mr. Dow. I am sorry. I didn't find my place so quickly.

Mr. LENNON. It is on page 2 of the bill we are talking about, line 5; "In carrying out his responsibilities under this section, the Secretary may:

(1) prescribe or approve marine traffic control procedures and methods," et cetera. That, in your judgment, would not authorize the Secretary to require the licensing of pilots and the requirement that pilots be put on board American registered vessels and foreign vessels when they entered our inland waters, would it?

Mr. Dow. Well, I think that comes in the next paragraph and perhaps also in the third where you refer to the movement.

Mr. LENNON. You recommend: "It is our recommendation that the Secretary require pilotage for any American vessel under registry and all vessels under foreign flags entering our inland waters, irrespective of where entry takes place.'

You are saying to us that this bill does not give the Secretary that authority? And I agree with you that it does not, but I want to hear you say it. You recommend that it ought to be done. Does this bill do it or doesn't it do it?

Mr. Dow. Mr. Lennon, the bill doesn't do it. It says that the Secretary may do it. But if he weasels around, as they sometimes do, and he doesn't do it, we don't have it. And we can have another Torrey Canyon.

Mr. LENNON. Being a maritime lawyer that you are, would you draw an amendment and submit it to the counsel of this committee for our consideration as to where your recommended suggestion ought to be that would mandate the Secretary to require pilotage on both American registered vessels and foreign vessels when they enter our inland waters?

I don't say the committee would accept it or even I would accept it, but we certainly ought to have you draw an amendment and submit it to the counsel for our further consideration.

Mr. Dow. With the greatest consideration. It will only be a few words and no problem.

(The suggested amendment follows:)

On page 2, line 13, the semi-colon after "law" should be deleted and the following words added: "for all foreign and United States vessels of 500 gross registered tons and over sailing under register, from the first available point where pilotage is tendered by suitably licensed pilots upon leaving the high seas and entering the inland waters of the United States, as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America, as amended, under Title 33 U.S.C. 151, 28 stat. 672, as amended, such pilotage to continue until the vessel leaves the inland waters of the United States and returns to the high seas, or surrenders her register.

"Such pilots shall be required to immediately report any unlawful acts on the part of such vessels, or those in charge of them, as they may be called upon to pilot, to the first available office of the Coast Guard for appropriate action."

Mr. Dow. In view of the Navy's testimony, and the very able Admiral who just spoke before me, there is something that I think I should say on behalf of the Coast Guard and on behalf of my own profession, the merchant marine.

And as an admiralty lawyer, I have had enough disasters to deal with in the last 34 years to know that if we had in the merchant marine a situation like the Yancey, they would have the scalp of every officer that was on watch on that ship. In the merchant marine, we do not leave a vessel at anchor with some kid from Kokomo watching a bearing repeater that he probably never saw in his life before until earlier that evening. Nobody takes bearings and nobody is responsible for them but the officer of the watch and his license is on the line every night of his life.

You can't delegate your responsibilities to unlicensed men and thereby protect your own license. We can't do that. We don't ask it. We never did. And we have to face the music with the Coast Guard and with our owners, with everybody and with the underwriters when we do these things.

I say this because, well, if I don't say it, nobody else will.

Mr. LENNON. Are you suggesting that the American taxpayers are underwriters for the Navy?

Mr. Dow. They are the stupidest underwriters in the world, because the Navy doesn't pay the premiums. They are the only fleet that doesn't pay its own premiums.

So I have to defend my own industry which has to stand on its own feet in the face of the worst competition that the world has ever known.

I hope you don't mind that, Admiral.

Mr. DOWNING. Of course, Mr. Dow, you have to realize the Navy doesn't have a choice of all of the people who command a ship. Mr. Dow. The Navy doesn't what?

Mr. DOWNING. You hire people that are especially trained for that and the Navy has to take what they can get.

Mr. Dow. You didn't get my point. If that was a merchant vessel, the officer on watch would be responsible to see that the anchor didn't drag and when the wind goes up, if he has any doubts, he puts engines on standby so they can relieve the anchors and he puts out more chain in advance and he doesn't wait for anybody to tell him. He doesn't wait for some unlicensed young man to take a bearing and then tell him what he should known in the first place, that the ship is dragging her anchor.

Mr. DOWNING. How about that licensed master of the Torrey Canyon that went screaming through those rocks off the Irish coast?

Mr. Dow. That was about as stupid as anything that I can imagine. You don't seek dangers and then try to thread a needle. You don't take unnecessary risks. He had a little cluster of very vicious rocks. It was a simple matter to go around them. If he loses 10 minutes. if he is a little late for his tide, what difference does it make? He has his ship under him. He saved 10 or 13 minutes and lost his ship.

And hundreds of millions went down the drain on both sides that the underwriters never paid for. They can't. The Torrey Canyon of the size that is now possible, you see, these modern tankers are now three times the size of the Torrey Canyon and they have already laid the keel of two three times the size of the Torrey Canyon.

Mr. DOWNING. Up to a million tons?

Mr. Dow. No; half a million. She was a hundred thousand or a little over. Now you take one three times the size of the Torrey Canyon and rip her bottom out in Long Island Sound and you can give the place back to the Indians and they won't take it.

Mr. LENNON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOWNING. Yes.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Dow, you have said that the objective of the bill was good but it was broad and was not definitive and specific enough in its language?

Mr. Dow. That is correct.

Mr. LENNON. You indicated that it would be the administrative implementation of the legislation that would determine its viability and potential good. Sometimes you can depend on that. We have many Federal programs with good long-range objectives, but the Federal implementation of which causes consternation, frustration and hostility. Would you submit to counsel for consideration of the committee definitive and explicit language that you think ought to be included in this bill to get it out of the category of being general and loose in its terms and more definitive and explicit, so that there would be no excuse for the administrative implementation of it in the manner and objective of which the committee now seeks?

Mr. Dow. Yes, sir; I would.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you, sir.

(The suggested language referred to follows:)

1. The word "many" should be changed to "shall" in the following three pieces: a. Page 1, line 10.

b. Page 2, line 6.

c. Page 5, line 1.

2. On page 2, line 10, the word "now" should be inserted after the word "not".

3. On page 4, line 14 should be deleted and replaced so that line 14 then reads as follows: "incident or accident, without regard to whether it be willful or negligent, involving the"

This last suggested change, page 4, line 14 is important. The line is ambiguous as it now stands, and it would certainly be argued by some that it only applies where the damage is "willful or negligent", just as many owning groups have contended on the question of liability for oil spill cleanups.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Dow, I have one question here for the record. On page, 2, you speak of areas such as Long Island Sound, Buzzards Bav, parts of the Chesapeake Bay and Pudget Sound where pilotage is not required.

Is it your idea that this void in pilotage should be filled by Federal or State pilots, or both?

Mr. Dow. In Puget Sound, you would have to have Federal pilots, no question about it. In most of these cases, you would have to have Federal pilots, because you pass through the waters of several States.

Now the only place where you are going to run into the situation which this bill attempts to anticipate is section 3, page 3, straits used for international navigation. Two that come immediately to mind— and you would certainly not apply them there-are the St. Lawrence and the Straits of Wandafuqua. If you are coming from any of those places into American port, you would be very well advised to take your American pilot as early as you can or, in the case of the St. Lawrence, take your pilot in Montreal, your American pilot, and let him take over when you cross into our territorial waters off the coast of Maine.

I don't consider that a bad thing at all. I think that is a very wise provision in this bill.

Mr. CLARK. Are the State pilots licensed by the Coast Guard? Mr. Dow. No, sir. A few who can qualify are, but generally speaking that is not true. They are licensed by the State and you see they apprentice in many places, like Sandy Hook, and they never go to sea. They never get out of sight of land, and they just go back and forth, and that is as far as they can go.

Your Federal pilot is a man who came up on deck or through one of the school ships or Kings Point, and eventually became an officer and shipmaster. And after he was a master, he got pilot's endorsements on his master's license and then came ashore as a Federal coast pilot. That is the kind of men that are ready, able, and willing to take over this kind of work immediately and avoid this very risk that we run every day without ever seeming to realize how close we come to disaster. We have had two or three tankers ashore in Long Island Sound in the past few years. Fortunately, they were gotten off before the situation got bad, but damage was done. It could have been much

worse.

During the towboat strikes last February and March, why, some of those big tankers went hung up on a rock attempting to maneuver into the narrow waters of New York Harbor to get alongside of the piers where they supply the oil for the big hydroelectric plants, I don't know. And yet these very pilots were the fellows without any tugs that put those big 30,000 and 40,000 tonners through those little narrow waters with almost no damage. They banged up a few piers, but it wasn't too bad. They damaged a pier rather than risk puncturing the vessel's hull. They did what they could.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Dow. We appreciate your coming.

Mr. Dow. Thank you. I will try to do what Mr. Lennon suggested as quickly as I can.

(The following letter was submitted for inclusion at this point in the record :)

PUGET SOUND PILOTS, Seattle, Wash., July 29, 1970.

Hon. THOMAS M. PELLY,

House of Representatives,

Congress of the United States,

Washington, D.C.

SIR: I have found before me the written testimony of Mr. Wilbur E. Dow of July 23, 1970, given before the House Committee on "Merchant Marine and Fisheries" concerning HR 17830 (HR 15710; HR 16009) wherein he states that

"There are many areas where pilotage is not required by state law . . . and Puget Sound."

Mr. Pelly, I would like to have the records corrected to show that all of the waters of Pudget Sound and Adjacent Inland Waters are compulsory pilotage (Chapter 18, Laws of the State of Washington 1935, as amended by Chapter 184, Session Laws 1941, and Chapter 15, Laws of 1969).

Enclosed is a copy of the "Pilotage Act" of the State of Washington. A Treaty between the United States does allow vessels of Canada and the United States to operate on contiguous waters of the two nations subject only to the laws of their respective countries regarding crewing and piloting. This allows Canadian ferries to operate between Victoria, B. C. and Seattle, and American ferries to operate between Port Angeles and Victoria, B. C., and between Anacortes via the San Juan Islands and Sidney, B. C. However, this Treaty does not allow any other flag vessels to operate in the waters of Puget Sound and Adjacent Inland Waters.

While the Puget Sound Pilots are in agreement with Mr. Dow in his concern to have all inland waters under pilotage, we believe this is best accomplished under the state pilotage system and laws.

Very truly yours,

FLOYD E. SMITH, President.

P.S.-Will you please keep me advised of the progress of this proposed legislation?

F. E. S.

Mr. CLARK. Colonel Garver, would you mind coming forward to the witness stand?

STATEMENT OF COL. RALPH T. GARVER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTO

RATE OF CIVIL WORKS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Colonel GARVER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Lt. Col. Ralph T. Garver, Executive Directorate of Civil Works, Office of the Chief Engineers, Department of Army.

We understand that H.R. 17830 would provide continuing general authority for the Coast Guard to protect vesels, structures, harbors, ports, and waterways from damage or loss. The Coast Guard now performs similar functions under an Executive order issued pursuant to the Magnuson Act, which authorizes such functions in the interests of national security.

Therefore we have no objection to H.R. 17830 or to the complementary bill, H.R. 15710, as they would not adversely affect the responsibilities and activities of the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Colonel. We are sorry that it has taken such a long time to get you on the witness stand.

Counsel, do you have any questions?

Mr. CORRADO. Colonel, yesterday the Coast Guard testified that the Corps of Engineers had jurisdiction and authority over the speed of vessels, I assume in the navigable waters of the United States. Is that correct?

Colonel GARVER. In some of the navigable waters of the United States, sir.

Mr. CORRADO. Could you, for the committee and for the record, send us a statement saying which navigable waters and could you tell us where the authority comes from for the Corps of Engineers? Colonel GARVER. I will be happy to provide that for the record,