it, and it was only this last year that we got anything at all. The chairman and Mrs. Sullivan and Mr. Clark asked for a viable bill, so we drafted this licensing bill that requires just the licensing of the operator in the wheelhouse, and we stayed away from all the other problems. We got it through the House, but to be realistic, I don't know when the bill might be enacted by the Senate the way it is. Maybe you fellows like it, but there are other folks who don't. But back to this asvisory system. Again I can't speak for the Coast Guard, but I just can't imagine that if this bill becomes law and the Coast Guard begins to implement it, that they are going to go in the major waterway and port areas and impose mandatory traffic control. I just have to believe that they will start out with an advisory system; it just seems to make sense. But, you know, there is no guarantee that that will happen, but it just seems to me that that's the way it will be. But even taking that, as I mentioned before, what handle would they have, what sanctions would they have, and what are the liabllities? Mr. LEHMAN. Well, under the "Rules of the Road" and the Motorboat Act, it says that no person will operate a vessel negligently, and then there are provisions for fining and sanctions against both licensed and unlicensed personnel. And I think if the Coast Guard could prove the case that the man was operating negligently by not taking the advice of the advisory service, that he could be proceeded against. Mr. CORRADO. If the guy is negligent, whether it's mandatory or advisory, I think you are going to get him. You know, the criminal provision says willfully, anyway. We have heard all kinds of testimony this morning, weeping and wailing about the criminal provision, but you have still got the protection "willfully" written into the bill. What I'm getting at is, I'm not sure from the standpoint of liability that you are better off one way or the other. Mr. LEHMAN. I think the Coast Guard has to prove the case of negligence on the one side, about if a man goes against the advice of the man in the control tower, said, "I want you to pass that fellow on a two-whistle side," and the guy says, "Well, there isn't any way. If I pass him on the two-whistle side, we are going to have a collision is because the wind is of such a magnitude that I have got to head into the wind." But he would be sitting there wondering whether his judgment was the one that he was supposed to act on or whether a Coast Guard's control tower man telling him the other, and he is in violation either way, then. He is going to have the collision or he is going to proceed against the advice. But I think under the other provision the Coast Guard would have to prove that he was negligent in what he did. We don't want to see our masters hamstrung. Mr. ROUNTREE. The airline pilot is subject to the same type of decisionmaking process, and if it's proven at a later date that the cause of the accident was pilot error because he failed to adhere to the advice and counsel of the airport control tower, well, then, I think you would agree with me that he should be held negligent. But it's still a judgment factor, and he can disregard the advice of the tower if-based upon his prerogatives as a pilot-he feels another course of action should be taken. Do you agree? Mr. GEARY. This is correct, but again-I'm not a lawyer, but as I would read this, I wouldn't think that he would have that right as it's presently written. Mr. ROUNTREE. The only thing the bill does is to require him to use this system. It just gives him an additional tool upon which he may use, just as you and I do when we fly our Cessnas. Mr. PETERKIN. I think that type of a system, though, would envision a large body of highly trained men, and anything that was judged to be a congested waterway Mr. ROUNTREE. The source of those trained men would come right from the local pilots, if this type of a system, looking way off into the future, was developed that way. Mr. CORRADO. I think that's why it will start out as an advisory system. Again I can't speak for the Coast Guard. Mr. GEARY. I appreciate your comments, but we would like to see a little more specification into the language as being enacted into law so that we feel a little more comfortable as to just what it's going to be. I'm comforted by your comments, but 5 years from today, things have a way of changing, and someone interprets something entirely different. We would like to see the regulations and like to see-we think this is still pretty broad. Mr. CLARK. I'm sure that what you see here in the bill is not going to be the bill in the final analysis. Mr. GEARY. Thank you. Mr. CLARK. That's why we are having these hearings. This is why the bill was changed from the last time, and we do appreciate your comments and your testimony and your advice. We do appreciate your coming, taking the time, because I know when you take the time, you really are interested in seeing that we get a good bill. And we are going to get a good bill out of this. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Mr. GEARY. Thank you, sir. Mr. PETERKIN. Thank you, sir. Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you, sir. Mr. CLARK. Now, do we have any other witnesses? If there are no other witnesses, the meeting is adjourned until tomorrow morning in Houston. (The hearing adjourned at 12:05 p.m., to reconvene at 10 a.m. in Houston, Tex.) PORT AND HARBOR SAFETY TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY AND NAVIGATION, Houston, Tex. The Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey and Navigation_met at 10 a.m. in room 225, Coast Guard Building, 7300 Wingate Street, Houston, Harris County, Tex., Hon. Frank Clark (chairman) presiding. Mr. CLARK. The meeting will come to order. Yesterday the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation of the House Merchant and Fisheries Committee held a hearing on H.R. 8140 in Galveston. Today we are holding a hearing in Houston for the purpose of receiving testimony on H.R. 8140 and two similar bills, H.R. 867 and H.R. 6232. Last year the subcommittee held 10 days of hearings on H.R. 17830. We now have a modified and improved harbor and safety bill, H.R. 8140. And we are anxious to get into the record the comments and testimony of the Houston marine community with respect to this bill. We have been aware for some time now that the ship channel to Houston is extremely dangerous and has the potential for a catastrophic accident. In this connection, the Coast Guard is seeking funds in the next legislature to establish a harbor radar advisory system in several major ports. Such an advisory system has been in effect in San Francisco for the last several years. When the funds are available, the Coast Guard intends to establish a similar harbor and radar advisory system in the Port of Houston. We see this harbor radar advsiory system as being directly related to the port and harbor safety legislation now under consideration. We feel that the testimony gathered today in Houston, together with the testimony taken yesterday in Galveston, should supply us with a rather complete picture of the problems in the Galveston-Houston port complex, and their relation to H.R. 8140. Although the testimony last year, to a large extent, favored the environmental and especially the safety aspects of the bill, the tenor of the criticism was that the bill was too loosely drawn and dangerously broad in its scope. The members of the subcommittee, counsel, and the Coast Guard recognized this was indeed a problem. In response to this recognition, subcommittee counsel went through the testimony and took out all of the amendments and suggestions therein and discussed them with the Coast Guard. As a result, on May 6, 1971, Chairman Garmatz introduced H.R. 8140, the new and modified version of last year's bill, which was drafted on the basis of last year's testimony. This bill has been tightened up considerably. A number of the areas which were so broad in last year's bill, as to be speculative, have now been made specific. We think H.R. 8140 is now acceptable. I do not believe that anyone should make the mistake that the mood of Congress is anything but in the direction of this type of legislation. We will be very disappointed if the testimony received on H.R. 8140 is completely negative as was the testiomny on H.R. 17830. We understand that when dealing with important legislation such as this, that it is always subject to amendments and improvement. However, we are very hopeful that the testiomny that we are about to receive will be of a positive and useful nature and will aid us in reporting out a superior piece of legislation. I would hope that all the witnesses will confine their remarks to the bill, H.R. 8140. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Edward Smith, chairman of the Port-Safety and Advisory Council, and president of Alamo Barge Lines. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. I didn't know you were going to call on me so sudden. Mr. CLARK. Take your time and you may proceed. Mr. SMITH. Do we talk through here? Mr. CLARK. Yes. You may sit down, give your name and address. STATEMENT OF EDWARD A. SMITH, PRESIDENT, ALAMO BARGE LINES Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I am a little reluctant in making any statement. After listening to your remarks, I suppose some of mine are negative, some I hope are positive. Mr. CLARK. Well, as I said, we are dealing with important legislation, and we know it is going to be subject to amendments and improvements to make it a better bill. Mr. SMITH. My name is Ed A. Smith, president of Alamo Barge Lines as well as other Texas corporations. I am also serving on the board of directors of American Waterways Operators Association and a member of the liaison committee to the Coast Guard in this association. At the present time I am also serving as chairman of the Port-Safety and Advisory Council of Harris County, on the Houston Ship Channel. I have operated tugs, towboats and barges throughout the United States, on inland waterways continuously since 1946. It has always been my thinking and policy, feeling, that some of the things can be voluntarily done by industry rather than through complete regulation by the Federal Government or State or local governments. So far as the use of the ship channel is concerned, in 1969, a committee of the Houston Port-Safety and Advisory Council, of which I was a member, I recommended improvements of navigation and safety on the Houston ship channel, made these recommendations to the Coast Guard, Captain of the Port. I read, as follows: That all vessels using the Houston ship channel be equipped with "bridge-tobridge" FM-VHF, voice communication capability. As you know, the President has just recently signed that bill and it will be effective and will probably will be the most important piece of legislation that has been passed during the last 50 years. No. 2 in our recommendations. That, whenever practical, tugs be used to assist vessels which cannot be navigated at a safe speed due to trim, draft, or individual ship-handling characteristics. No. 3. That a speed limit of 8-miles-per-hour be set and enforced for vessels moving above Morgan's Point, with suitable speed reductions when passing other channel traffic, docks, or other facilities as required for safety. No. 4. That all accidents due to surge or wave wash should be reported to the captain of the port, U.S. Coast Guard and investigated by the same. That all incidents involving surge or wave wash which are hazardous but where there is no significant damage should be reported to the captain of the port, U.S. Coast Guard, and a record kept of the complaint. In August of 1969, the Coast Guard, captain of the port, endorsed this recommendation in a COTP public notice 8-1969, the captain of the port, U.S. Coast Guard. These recommendations have been put into effect by industry and the safety record for the Houston Ship Channel has been excellent. As mentioned, item 1, of these recommendations has recently become a law as signed by the President of the United States, namely, that all vessels using the Houston Ship Channel be equipped with bridge-tobridge FM-VHF voice communication capability. I believe that's all vessels over 26 feet, as I recall it, that the law read in there. In my opinion, the Coast Guard and the Corps of Engineers already have the power to control the safety of any ports throughout the United States. I believe this is a temporary order that was directed by President Truman in 1960, and so far as I know, still remains as a temporary order. Mr. CLARK. May I correct that. Not 1960. You said President Truman. Mr. SMITH. 1950. Mr. CLARK. Yes. Mr. SMITH. Excuse me. I feel that the Coast Guard and U.S. Corps of Engineers have done an excellent job in directing and controlling the safety of the ports of the United States. The present bill that is pending in the Congress, namely, H.R. 8140, is a definite improvement over the previous bill and does in many measures do away with some of the generalities and ambiguities that were in the previous bill. As I understand it, there are three bills, Your Honor, and those are H.R. 8140, H.R. 6232 and H.R. 867, of which I prefer the latter, if we do need a bill. In the discussions that I have had with the American Waterways Operators, and specifically Mr. Robert J. Hughes, chairman of the liaison committee to the Coast Guard or American Waterways Operators, we feel that this bill still can be improved and should be improved before it passes. For these reasons I mentioned in his testimony and also mine, and recommended by the board of directors of American Waterways Operators, I wholeheartedly sanction and I am entering a copy as a part of my testimony and his testimony |