It has been our observation that the intelligent control of water for navigation. industrial use, municipal use, human use and conservation has resulted in prosperity, expansion of industry, the development of new industries, new employment of new industries, new employment and recreation in the areas served by such waterways. The purpose of this letter is to refer to the July 21, 1971 statement presented before your committee by E. Michael Cassady on behalf of water Resources Congress in connection with H.R. 8140. The Waterways Association of Pittsburgh wishes to take this opportunity to express its full concurrence with and support of the statement by Mr. Cassady. The legislation as proposed would have a significant effect on the economic benefits of water transportation in this tri-state area and therefore we urge that your committee give consideration of the points discussed and referred to in Mr. Cassady's statement. Also, we would appreciate having this letter incorporated in the record of the hearings. Respectfully, TOM MARSHALL, President. (Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.) น PORT AND HARBOR SAFETY FRIDAY, AUGUST 6, 1971 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST Guard, COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY, AND NAVIGATION OF THE Boston, Mass. The Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Navigation met at 10 a.m., in the John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, Mass., Hon. Frank Clark (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. : Mr. CLARK. The meeting will please come to order. The Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Navigation has scheduled this hearing today so that those of you who have expressed interest and concern about this very important piece of legislation may have an opportunity to express your views. H.R. 8140, which is cited as the Port and Waterways Safety Act of 1971, deals with the same subject matter as H.R. 17830, the bill which was introduced by the administration last year. As you know, this subcommittee conducted extensive hearings on the prior bill and considered testimony from all facets of the industry and from all interested parties. The testimony and evidence presented to this subcommittee last year indicated that, although there was general accord with the environmental and safety features of the bill, there was also considerable apprehension about the vagueness and the possible broadness of interpretation of certain areas of the bill. Realizing that some of the criticism and apprehension was justified this subcommittee withheld presenting the bill to Congress for its consideration and began an extensive and thorough review of the testimony and proposed amendments. During this time conferences were held with the Coast Guard to discuss those areas of controversy and after a great deal of hard work on the part of all concerned, Chairman Garmatz introduced H.R. 8140 on May 6 of this year. We feel that this bill represents considerable improvement over last year's bill in that the language is more specific, the rules and regulations provided for in the act are now subject to review in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act and the bill further requires that the Secretary file a report with the Congress within a year of its passage giving his recommendations for legislation which may be necessary to achieve greater coordination between the functions authorized by the act and the functions of the various agencies which may be affected. During this year's hearings, we anticipated and received greater support for this bill than its counterpart of last year. We realize that legislation as important as this should receive the highest degree of scrutiny and we feel that the record of this piece of legislation exemplifies that principle. However, I want to impress upon you that while it is prudent to proceed with caution in matters such as this, the prevailing conditions of our ports and harbors increasingly dictate that we proceed with haste. A prime example of the urgent need for this type of legislation is the collision which occurred in January of this year between the tanker Arizona Standard and the tanker Oregon Standard in San Francisco Bay. This single collision resulted in spillage of over half a million gallons of oil into the waters of the San Francisco Bay area. I sincerely hope that with your cooperation this subcommittee can favorably report H.R. 8140, or a similar bill to this Congress for its consideration and passage. And now it is my pleasure to ask Congressman Keith, who is here representing Massachusetts today, and also a ranking member on the Subcommittee on Coast Guard, to say a few words at this time. Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Frank. Although I am relatively new to the committee, my interest in these problems is of long standing. It dates from my childhood efforts to navigate Woods Hole in fog; more lately, in trying to work my way into Cape May from offshore at nighttime, in busy traffic with the very hazardous shoreline presented by the glaze of shore lights. This is not to say anything of Barnegat Inlet, which has the same conditions The Port and Waterways Safety Act is a most important piece of legislation. As we recognize the impact on our environment as a result of our efforts to encourage ocean commerce, and our expansion of the inland waterways, we realize that we haven't had enough foresight to establish the type of legislation and regulations to do an adequate job. At the same time, we don't want to go too far. Moderation in this matter is essential to the welfare of the industry, as well as to the ecology. I flew over to the Scilly Islands to witness the effect of the Torrey Canyon disaster. I attended a subsequent meeting of IMCO as it studied ways in which problems of that sort could be eliminated or coped with. I went down to Puerto Rico and saw the damage that the Ocean Eagle did. I flew in the middle of the night to West Falmouth to see the "Florida," and the impact of that oil spill on the fragile shoreline. So I have really a deep interest in both the commerce of the ports. in the Nation, and the ecology on which that commerce is found to have an impact. I am delighted to be here today to have a chance to listen to the people more closely associated with my constituency. Boston has, in my view, one of the finest ports, and certainly the greatest tradition, in the shipping industry since the days of Allan McKay. We can contribute greatly to the Nation's understanding of this problem and its resolution. I want to congratulate you for coming up here, Mr. Chairman, and showing your interest in their points of view. Mr. CLARK. Thank you for your remarks. And I will say that one of these days we will have Boston back on the map as a great seaport. Mr. KEITH. It has never been taken off the chart. Mr. CLARK. Our first witness will be John Halloran. John, it is good to have you with us. STATEMENT OF JOHN J. HALLORAN, MANAGER OF THE MARITIME ASSOCIATION OF GREATER BOSTON Mr. HALLORAN. My name is John J. Halloran. I am manager of the Maritime Association of Greater Boston, a voluntary association of steamship owners and agents, terminal operators, stevedores, and others interested in the Port of Boston and the development of waterborne commerce. This association has been in existence for more than 50 years. Our primary object has been the safe operation of ships and cargo. H.R. 8140 is apparently designed to give continuing legislative authority to the Coast Guard to maintain the emergency powers which were created by Presidential decree. Section 2 of this bill, which contains general authority, appears to permit unlimited powers to the Coast Guard, or the Secretary, along the following lines: Establishment, operation, and maintenance of traffic services and systems; control vessel traffic; specify when a ship may enter, leave and how she shall move in the harbor; regulate size and speed of vessel; again, direct the anchoring of a vessel when Coast Guard considers it necessary; prescribe minimum safety equipment requirements for structures subject to this act to protect from fire, explosion, natural disasters, and other serious accidents or casualties. Section 3 requires consultation with other Federal agencies, and also State and local authorities. Nowhere does it indicate that the public or private maritime authorities shall have any voice or consideration. This bill would apparently superimpose discretionary powers of the Coast Guard or the "Secretary" upon tried and proven safety rules of pilotage, freedom of vessel movement, fire, and safety rules governing terminals and adjacent property. Nowhere is it provided that there is specific need for all this disruption and turmoil. It appears to me that the old time tradition of the masters having complete authority over the safety of their vessels and the lives of all on board may be invaded by the discretionary authority given the Coast Guard. In this connection we like the statement of the court in the Lusitania case regarding the judgment of the master at a time of emergency which we quote: The fundamental principle in navigating a merchantman, whether in times of peace or of war, is that the commanding officer must be left free to exercise his own judgment. Safe navigation denies the proposition that the judgment and sound discretion of the captain of a vessel must be confined in a mental straight-jacket. After a disaster has occurred, it is not difficult for the expert to show how it might be avoided, and there is always opportunity for academic discussions as to what ought or ought not to have been done; but the true approach is to endeavor, for the moment, to possess the mind of him upon whom rested the responsibility. The lack of compassion for the merchant seaman, shipowner or terminal operator is manifest in the penalties enumerated in sections. 7 and 8. Section 7 provides not more than $1,000 penalty for violation of any regulation, and section 8 specifies a penalty of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 10 years or both for any willful violation. In addition, a vessel used or employed in a violation of regulation shall be liable in rem and may be proceeded against in any district court having jurisdiction. In applying these penalties it is important to keep in mind that the Coast Guard will be the accuser or complainant; they will be judge and jury; and they will be the appellate tribunal. Finally, without any language in the bill outlining any detailed scope of the authority that will be provided the Coast Guard and the elimination of conflict with current rules and statutes, it would appear that the "Secretary" will issue rules and regulations that will accomplish every detail and cure all ills. It seems to us that this is going too far and that some restrictive language and detailed directives must be included. In short, it is our studied opinion that this bill as written was entirely unnecessary, and secondly that this legislation as presently proposed will increase hazards, not reduce them, and will result in substantial cost to the public of this country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me the opportunity to appear before you and express our views and recommendations. Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, John. You referred to section 8 and the word in there whoever "willfully" violates a regulation. Now, of course, we put the word "willfully" in there because then the intent of willful behavior must be proven in order for a prosecution to succeed. You understand that. Mr. HALLORAN. By the Coast Guard? Mr. CLARK. Proven to the court. Mr. KEITH. There is an appeal. Mr. HALLORAN. When do you get that appeal? After all the first allegations that there was a violation willfully or otherwise by some person in the Coast Guard, he goes to a hearing or trial. The man is tried, and he is penalized whatever it may be. Then if he insists on appeal; again it goes to the commandant or somebody named by him. Now up to that moment he is completely in the hands of the accuser, who is the judge and jury and the appellate authority. Now am I wrong in that? Mr. CLARK. No, I would say you are wrong. I think you are wrong because once the Coast Guard has made an accusation, they will have to prove that this is so. And I said before that it has to go to the court, this is with respect to the criminal provisions. Mr. CORRADO. The Coast Guard has to buck this over to the Justice Department for the prosecution of the criminal case, and most of these cases the Justice Department will throw out because when they get the facts of the case they will find that they can't prove a willfull intent. They just don't have the money and manpower to spend on these cases they can't prove. So as a practical matter most of these cases won't even be pursued once the Coast Guard refers it over to the Justice Department. I have been involved in this when I worked in Government agencies, and I know this is exactly what happens. Mr. HALLORAN. I wasn't going to be critical, but in connection with our recommendations to these ships, I think it will be enlight |