work in that port. A Supreme Court decision held that the Federal law did not apply to port pilots. In some cases, this created dual licensing authority for the same body of water, such as the case in San Francisco.

In 1850 the first session of the California Legislature passed an act to establish pilots and pilot regulations for the port of San Francisco. This statute provided for a board of pilot commissioners empowered to appoint qualified pilots to perform pilotage tasks on State waters across the bar and in San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays.

This board has sole jurisdiction, even to the licensing of bar pilots, and administers and enforces the statutes governing them. The board is charged with adopting rules, regulations, and bylaws for the government of the San Francisco Bar Pilots, with assessing and collecting revenues from pilotage fees, with directing investigations into ships' accidents involving a pilot and dispensing disciplinary penalties, with inspecting the three pilot vessels owned and maintained by the San Francisco Bar Pilots Association, and with instigating such action as is necessary to keep the bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun navigationally safe. This law has worked satisfactorily for 121 years and State pilotage has served the State of California well.

In 1968 the Governor's reorganization plan proposed to abolish the State licensing authority with the intent of transferring the licensing authority to local control. All interested organizations could see that such a transfer would abolish a smooth functioning licensing authority which has demonstrated competence and prudent management for over 120 years. Therefore, the steamship operators, both dry cargo and oil tankers, the State legislature, regulatory agencies and the pilots themselves joined in a major study, conducted by a special subcommittee of the State senate to consider the issue of State regulation of pilotage. Although the recommendations of the subcommittee did not please all participants, the_recommendations were emphatically in support of State regulation. In 1970 the chairman of the subcommittee introduced and successfully passed legislation which reaffirmed State regulation over pilotage across the San Francisco Bar. The Governor supported this legislation on the basis, of the subcommittee's findings. After recommendations from his cabinet, he signed the measure into law.

The San Francisco Bar Pilots handle about 8,700 ships yearly and we have a fine safety record, unsurpassed in the annals of piloting. We cooperate closely with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the local and State authorities. Each bar pilot handles about 45 to 50 ships, per month, approximately two ships per pilot per day; therefore, you can readily see that our type of pilots are experienced and capable of handling any ships that call in San Francisco Bay, regardless of conditions brought about by weather, visibility, average of 1,271 hours of fog per year, or mechanical difficulties.

With the experience that our men have, I cannot help but take exception to Capt. David Kennedy's remarks made in his prepared statement before this subcommittee in Washington, D.C. It just is not possible for any association, Federal pilot or ship's master, to have the experience or ability to pilot ships in this area as well and with such assurance of safety of safety as the San Francisco Bar Pilots; and I should say that this kind of situation exists in all of the U.S. ports of the Pacific.

There is just not any kind of organization that can equal the type of safety that can be furnished by the State pilot, which, incidentally, is also a federally licensed pilot.

San Francisco bar pilots and all State pilots organizations on the Pacific coast of the United States are close knit organizations. This is necessary in order to keep each other advised of the conditions that exist. We maintain liaison with each other regarding positions and. problems. Each pilot is equipped with a VHF radio telephone for communication with other pilots, ships, and stations. We operate a weather station at sea in cooperation with the U.S. Weather Bureau at no cost to the taxpayer and we cooperate and participate with the U.S. Coast Guard in its pilot operation of the harbor advisory radar system. Our dispatching office maintains communication with steamship companies and all of the other pilotage organizations of the Pacific coast regarding ship arrivals and departures. We are the lookout station for San Francisco in the reporting of arrivals and departures and the business of most of the ships transiting in and out of San Francisco Bay.

On the issue of licensing, we have a situation here in San Francisco Bay that is not to the liking of the State pilotage organization. It is somewhat unique from all of the other ports of the United States. The problem arises from the fact that any vessel which last called at a foreign port and which has passed into San Francisco Bay about a mile. inside the Golden Gate Bridge is not required to take a licensed pilot. Efforts were made this year to require all foreign and U.S. ships under register to have a State licensed pilot on board was killed in committee by the steamship companies. The pilots feel very strongly about this condition and it is our intention to continue our support of legislation which will correct this potentially dangerous situation.

In the State of California Legislature there is a bill entitled, "Assembly Bill No. 220," introduced by Assemblymen Brown, Porter, Dunlap, and MacDonald that establishes "Division of Marine Traffic Control in Department of Navigation and Ocean Development." This bill was very well drawn and could be used as a model for other legislation regarding traffic control of ships. It has passed through the assembly and we hope it will pass through the Senate when the California Legislature reconvenes in September after the summer recess. This bill has been drawn to terminate at the end of the fiscal year in which any Federal system of marine traffic control takes full force. The State pilots fully support the concept of traffic control and are hopeful that statutory regulations, either State or Federal, will soon be adopted.

Pending Federal statutes, one approach to adopting traffic control regulations would be to expand the present system of appointment, control and discipline by the State board of pilot commissioners, which has worked so well for 121 years, to include traffic control, and licensing jurisdiction for all waters and pilots operating vessels in the San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays and the inland waters contiguous thereto.

The State pilots in San Francisco Bay have fully cooperated with the Coast Guard in the installation of the harbor advisory radar system and are now fully cooperating in its operation and would suggest that after it has passed out of the experimental state, that

pilots with their expert knowledge of the bay and conditions be allowed to participate in the manning and operation of the harbor advisory radar system. We are also willing and ready to participate in a traffic control system. When two State pilots are on board two meeting vessels, each ship cooperates fully with the other taking into consideration the visibility and current conditions the other pilot has to contend with. You would not have this kind of safety with any other pilot system. The California State Pilots support H.R. 8140 in its present form along with the American Pilots Association and stands ready to assist the Coast Guard in promoting safety in ports and harbors of the State of California.

On still another subject of interest to this committee, although related to the foregoing remarks, is the issue raised by the American Institute of Merchant Shipping which would require:

all pilots on self-propelled vessels engaged in foreign trades to hold as a condition of employment, in addition to any State requirements, a valid Federal license issued and subject to the provisions of section 4442 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (46 U.S.C. 214).

Toward this end the American Institute of Merchant Shipping has caused a measure to be introduced in the California Legislature (SB 1384), which in effect amends the present California Harbors and Navigation Code to conform with their recommendation. I am passing a copy of this measure to you as an exhibit.

On this subject I think it is important for the committee to understand that all of the San Francisco Bay Pilots have Federal licenses and are subject to full Coast Guard investigation at the present time. In addition, the San Francisco Pilot Commission has full authority to investigate and discipline pilots. Implementation of the American Institute of Merchant Shipping recommendation would be an unwarranted and unnecessary duplication of jurisdiction. While it is an objectionalbe proposal on the grounds of prudent government, it is equally objectionable to the pilot organizations, in that it places the pilots which make up these organizations in a position of double jeopardy.

Regarding Capt. David Kennedy's statement, page 100, line 13, in the transcript in which he makes reference to Federal pilots on the west coast of the United States, the only Federal pilots that I know of on this coast are the San Pedro Bay Pilots who are employed by the city, the Long Beach Pilots who operate under a franchise from the city, and the California Inland Pilots Association that operates in San Francisco Bay. With the exception of the Long Beach Pilots, all of these pilots want State licenses and have made great efforts to obtain them.

Requiring a Federal pilot on a ship leaving San Pedro or Long Beach to bring the ship into San Francisco Bay would only mean an extra cost for the shipping companies. They would have another mouth to feed, and another man on board. In addition, the Coast Guard would be required to subsidize the steamship companies by providing for a Federal pilot station outside of San Francisco Bay, and very probably other bays on the west coast.

Thank you for this opportunity to present our views and recommendations. It is a privilege to be allowed to appear before this committee. Please feel free to call upon us at any time you feel we can be of service to you.

Mr. CLARK. Captain, I congratulate you on a very fine statement. And not only that, but your wholehearted support of the bill.

Captain SIMENSTAD. Thank you, sir.

Mr. CLARK. We do appreciate it very much.

Captain SIMENSTAD. Thank you, sir.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Mailliard?

Mr. MAILLIARD. Well I, also, Captain, want to say that I appreciate the very constructive statement. And am I correct that the paragraph which refers to pilots in this bill, which is section 2, subparagraph 5, doesn't give you any particular problems?

Captain SIMENSTAD. No, sir. Fully support that just in its present form.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Really, it's simply to fill a gap where the State hasn't exercised its authority.

Captain SIMENSTAD. Right. We are in full agreement.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. McCloskey?

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. No questions.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much.

Captain SIMENSTAD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLARK. Just before our next witness, I want to say how much I appreciate having Bill Mailliard here with us. And I am very happy that you are on our committee, and we hope you will be there a long, long time.

Our next witness is Capt. William Caldwell, vice president of the International Masters, Mates and Pilots. Captain you may proceed. STATEMENT OF CAPT. WILLIAM CALDWELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS

Captain CALDWELL. I am William Caldwell, executive vice president of the International Masters, Mates and Pilots. And although I had requested to make a statement in front of this committee on H.R. 8140. Later I had our office has made available certain reports and records what we feel that we should define further before making an official statement for the international organization. And I wish to withdraw the request to make a statement at this time. But I assure the committee that our international organization will make a strong statement and make many useful recommendations in regards to this legislation because safety and the welfare of our international organization members go hand in hand.

Thank you.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Captain. The record will be open for the next 10 days. So I hope that by that time you will be able to get your recommendations in to us.

Captain CALDWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLARK. Can you tell us if you favor the bill at this time? Captain CALDWELL. Yes; I feel that our organization will take a strong positive position on the useful recommendations. But we would like to refine our position further because we are speaking for the international organization, about 11,000 members.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Captain.

Our next witness is Capt. Robert Durkin, vice president, Pacific Division, M.M. & P. Good to have you with us, Captain.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. ROBERT DURKIN, VICE PRESIDENT, PACIFIC DIVISION, MASTERS, MATES & PILOTS

Captain DURKIN. Mr. Chairman, actually Captain Caldwell has already spoken what would be my position. We are working in coordination with our international office. As I told Congressman Mailliard telephonically yesterday, I do believe there are certain definitions to be made, and I didn't get a chance. I think, with your permission, if Mr. Sharood could possibly take some notes on some questions I want to jot down and take up with our international office. Would that be permissible?

Mr. CLARK. Very well. That can be done.

Captain DURKIN. Anytime any bill has your name on it, along with Chairman Garmatz, and the other side of the aisle, Congressmen Pelly and Mailliard, it has a great headstart with the I.M.M. & P. Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, and we do appreciate those remarks.

The next witness is Capt. Don Fuller, Local 40, M.M. & P.

Capt. FULLER. Mr. Congressmen, Mr. Chairman, my statements will be concurrent with the international as I am preparing a coordination with Captain Durkin and Captain Caldwell.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much. We do appreciate that.

Next is Mr. James Penrod and Miss Julia Hillis of the Sierra Club. We do appreciate both of you coming and we know that your talk this morning and your questions will no doubt be on ecology and what this bill does to it, or doesn't do to it. Both of you may proceed as you wish.

STATEMENT OF JAMES N. PENROD ON BEHALF OF THE SIERRA CLUB, ACCOMPANIED BY JULIA HILLIS

Mr. PENROD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I think that we may be running out of time to present the long statement that I prepared. We have many specific suggestions for the improvement of this bill. I have submitted a written statement to the counsel of the committee, and I hope that the statement will be published in the record in toto.

Mr. CLARK. If there are no objections, the statement will be put into the record at this point, and you may proceed with your remarks.

STATEMENT OF JAMES N. PENROD ON BEHALF OF THE SIERRA CLUB, ACCOMPANIED BY JULIA HILLIS

My name is James N. Penrod. I am here on behalf of the Sierra Club. My address is 556 Commercial Street, San Francisco, California. I am a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a large part of my legal background has been in the area of admiralty and maritime law. I am accompanied by Miss Julia Hillis, also an attorney, from the Sierra Club offices, 1050 Mills Tower, 220 Bush Street, San Francisco, California.

The Sierra Club should not need extensive introduction. It is a growing conservation organization of approximately 130,000 members throughout the United States. We have long been interested in bringing man's on-rushing technology and civilization into harmony with his basic life-support processes and environment. The problems, which involve man's very survival, are milti-faceted and project over land, sea and air. The bill presently under consideration, if passed