made ridiculous errors that you regretted to see in print. I am quite sure of that. I know some of these men. They just know better than that, but they were rushed into the writing of this. I think that in a year's time they would have the opportunity of more careful review and study and would come up with a set of regulations that would better suit the industry. And I think the industry is at fault by not helping them a little more.

Thank you.

Senator COTTON. Thank you for a very interesting statement.

We have been in continuous session today. We are about to have another vote in the Senate. Now, there are three more witnesses from a distance who wanted to leave today, but the records show that these gentlemen only made their presence known to the committee today. I doubt if we would be able to hear all three of them. Mr. Bailey, Mr. Seehorn, and Mr. Izor, are they in the room? How long statements do you gentlemen have?

Mr. BAILEY. Fairly short statement.

Senator COTTON. Do both of you wish to leave Washington tonight if possible, all three of you?

Mr. BAILEY. Yes.

Senator COTTON. Mr. Bailey, you come ahead. We will go until the bell rings, anyway.

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, sir.

Senator COTTON. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. BAILEY. I do not have a prepared statement.

STATEMENT OF BRYAN BAILEY, WILMINGTON, CALIF.

Senator COTTON. State your name and address and whom you represent.

Mr. BAILEY. I am a representative of the West Coast Marine Council and president of the Southern California Fisherman Association. Probably the first thing to get into the text of the hearing would be to say that we, on the west coast, do support the request for the additional time on S. 1866. Probably we should qualify our request with the statement that we have been going along on the new proposal of rules. We have made every effort to get our members to send in their requests and we have sent them to the Coast Guard.

However, we found that there were not enough books available to acquaint our boat operators on the coast with the new proposed regulations. We did, however, get several hundred of them into the Coast Guard and we are hopeful that something better can come from these proposed rules and regulations.

This is the main reason for our appearance here. We are sympathetic and believe in the longer time limit in coming up with a better set of rules and regulations. Everything else has been said. It is repetition to tear into the things we disapprove of. We prepared briefs. In the first hearing the West Coast Council came out and presented our brief, that was last year. Once again we have composed a brief on the things we don't think are right in the new regulations. We would be very happy to present the committee with both copies of these. It might save time.

Senator COTTON. We will be very glad to receive them and we appreciate your consideration of that matter. Thank you very much. Senator COTTON. The next witness is Mr. Frank Seehorn.

STATEMENT OF FRANK SEEHORN, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

Mr. SEEHORN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Frank Seehorn, 420 South Broadway, Redondo Beach, Calif., president of the H-10 Water Taxi Co., Ltd., San Pedro, Calif.

I think quite a bit has been said here, too, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to be repetitious. I do want to bring out that I think these Coast Guard 249 regulations are not realistic in all cases to vessels of various types which are employed today in carrying passengers for hire.

I have a fleet of vessels, as well as Mr. Bailey, of a similar type, and it was expressed to us by the Coast Guard that they would not be able to operate offshore under the present situation-I mean as far as Coast Guard 249 goes.

Our vessels hold an excellent record for 35 years. My company has been in business with the same type of vessel for 35 years. We have not had one casualty or a serious accident. My insurance claims to date are $165 since 1922, and I think that a little bit more realistic attitude, a little bit more time put on this Coast Guard 249 by the Coast Guard themselves; they could and should, and I think they can come up with something workable for all of us.

Senator COTTON. I am going to ask if-I don't want either Mr. Seehorn or Mr. Izor to feel that they are not getting full attention of the committee, but I am going to ask if you would be willing to complete your testimony, and the other gentlemen, under the direction of the staff here, who will receive your testimony, and I assure that we shall read it most carefully.

And then would it be convenient for you gentlemen from the Coast Guard to return here tomorrow morning?

Admiral HIRSHFIELD. Yes, sir.

Senator COTTON. And it would be convenient for the other witnesses. We have Captain Whittemore, Mr. Simmons, Mullen, Harrison, Gutermuth, Will, Hammer, and Mr. Schmahl. I may have mispronounced your names-are these gentleman all here? Would it be convenient to resume after Mr. Seehorn has completed his testimony, and Mr. Izor, to convene tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock? Would that be convenient?

Mr. BAYNTON. Do you have any further testimony?

Mr. SEEHORN. I am a member of the West Coast Marine Council also. I did make comments to the Coast Guard on Coast Guard 249. They are in the hands of the committee right now. And I just hope that something can be worked out that is more reasonable, financially, to all of us, and workable, too, safetywise.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear.

Mr. BAYNTON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Izor.

STATEMENT OF RUSS IZOR, SAN PEDRO, CALIF.

Mr. IZOR. Mr. Chairman, my name is Russ Izor, 3141 Lake Hollywood Drive, Hollywood, Calif.

Contrary to all the rest of the gentlemen here, I am an individual boatowner; I don't represent any council, any union, any associationjust me and I am pleading for a year or 2 years to arrange to get out of the business that I have been making my living at for 10 years.

I have digested as best I can 249, and there is no provisions in there for plywood boats in 249. These boats have come about since the close of World War II. They are a new idea in boat construction, and there is no provisions whatsoever for bulkheading plywood boats.

To begin with, it is impractical. Anytime that you place a stress bulkhead in a plywood boat, you create a stress point on the outside skin, which if it is ever given any impact close to that bulkhead, you are very apt to rip the entire hull along that bulkhead.

Our bulkheads are longitudinal; they run the length of the vessel; they do not run crosswise.

Our insurance surveys are so very exhaustive that it seems to me as though they would be adequate in seeing to it that the boat was sound for a given year. Believe me, if you would go through any of the insurance company surveys of our boats, both for hull and liability insurance for the passengers we carry, you will see that they are very exhaustive, and they do not recommend a boat for hauling passengers for hire where the load limits run as high as $200,000, unless the boat is sound.

They also investigate the operator, and they don't pass on the operator unless he is considered sound.

The question that came up in some of the meetings on the west coast with Commander McIntosh was route restrictions, and that was something that we couldn't swallow either. Nobody in the Coast Guard could tell us what route restrictions actually amounted to, where they were going, or what we could expect as a result of Public Law 519. We could get from them that very probably a vessel of my type would be limited to not more than 20 miles offshore, which would prohibit me from doing business.

I fish at Catalina Island, and it is 21 miles offshore. Frankly, the only agreement that appeared before this committee with Public Law 519, and which is not adverse to 1866 was by Mr. John Suydam. I wish to infer that the reason that this agreement came from this man was because earlier in the hall before the meeting came about, he said, "Take it easy on the Coast Guard. If you get on their backs, they will get on your backs."

I am not for appeasement, I don't believe in pussy footing. If we have a set of regulations, if we can't live with it, we get out of the business. I don't see any reason to pussyfoot around and in no way or shape get on the Coast Guard blacklist. That is a lot of inference which probably doesn't prevail, but that does happen.

I can't see how in the world they will ever enforce Public Law 519 with present personnel. I am going to finish with one example. We have courtesy examinations on the west coast. Recently I was subjected to a courtesy examination. I came alongside a Coast Guard vessel, having been alongside of them before, with a load of passengers, and I didn't want a yeoman to come down from the Coast Guard vessel with a long list of: Do I have this? Do I have that? Do I have this? I pleaded to the bridge: "Sir, will you send someone down here who can tell me more about my vessel than I know myself."

They waved me on. In other words, I bluffed them out of an examination. I don't know where I am going to stand when I get through here. Fortunately, this is a long way from the west coast,

and Commander McIntosh isn't here. But that is my feeling as an individual.

Thank you for hearing me.

Mr. BAYNTON. Would you for the record, Mr. Izor, describe your business a little bit?

Mr. IZOR. I haul charter parties, exclusively sport fishing.
Mr. LUCKEY. How big is your boat?

Mr. Izor. Forty feet.

Mr. LUCKEY. One boat?

Mr. Izor. One boat.

Mr. LUCKEY. Do you happen to manufacture boats?

Mr. Izor. No. I built this boat. I worked in plywood boatyards for many years prior to building this one. It is all diesel electric, and has all safety equipment, but it could not comply in many instances with the regulations in this book. It is simply a different type of construction, not covered. We need time to plead our case, and I hope that this year will be granted. Because I know that the representatives that are here from the various phases of a disjointed industry such as ours, are now going to realize how important this whole thing is to their livelihood, and probably some good will come of it in forming a good union that will be able to speak for the whole industry rather than a disjointed thing such as we have now.

Mr. LUCKEY. What is the value of your boat, approximately?
Mr. IzoR. $15,000.

Mr. BAYNTON. Thank you, Mr. Izor.

(The statement submitted by Senator Smathers, also a number of letters, follow :)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SMATHERS

Mr. Chairman, since the adoption of Public Law 519, relating to safety of small vessels, many of my constituents in the boating business in one form or another, have complained vigorously about certain proposed rules and regulations which are to be promulgated by the Coast Guard under this statute.

There is no question about the fact that we are all for safety. However, I am convinced that a general set of rules and regulations to carry out the purpose of the act must be reasonable because of the various aspects of the boating interests. Complicated rules of general application will, in my opinion, have the effect of thwarting the intent of Congress dealing with this safety issue, and at the same time operate to the detriment of the boating business, which is not only of importance to the economy of my State, but to the Nation as well.

I have been advised that the proposed rules or standards are detailed and hard to understand. Consequently, it is my belief that once the Coast Guard understands completely the problems peculiar to each segment of the boating industry, it will be much easier to issue rules and regulations simple and understandable enough for carrying out the practical intent of the Congress, that is to provide the greatest means of safety which can be achieved in a workable

manner.

For the foregoing reasons I sincerely trust that the committee will approve S. 1866, allowing additional time for the Coast Guard to formulate practical rules and regulations consistent with the provisions of Public Law 519.

Re Senate bill No. 1866.

SANTA MONICA SPORTFISHING CO.,
Santa Monica, Calif., May 14, 1957.

SENATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIRS: We are in favor of Senate bill No. 1866, and we believe that it is most important to allow additional time for regulations for us to comply. Sincerely yours,

VERSAL V. SCHULER,

Member of West Coast Marine Council.

WILMINGTON, DEL., May 13, 1957.

Hon. GEORGE A. SMATHERS,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR SMATHERS: As a member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, having jurisdiction over the Coast Guard, would you kindly consider the disastrous results that the recent Public Law 519 would have on several thousand small passenger boatowners on both Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and support Senators Margaret Chase Smith and Frederick G. Payne on their bill, S. 1866, which they have cosponsored.

This bill is entitled "An act to require inspection and certification of certain vessels carrying passengers." Most anyone will agree that all vessels carrying passengers should come under a standard inpection and certification, but the regulations appearing in Public Law 519 seem to be much too topheavy for smaller craft, and Public Law 519 should be stayed for a year so that the Coast Guard and committees of the passenger boat industry could cooperate in formulating rules designed to fit the smaller boats.

As a summer resident in Maine, we look upon this passenger boat group as one of the greatest attractions to vacationists. To regulate them out of business would also injured many other small-business men in these coastal communities at a time when they need all the assistance possible to survive. This same situation also applies up and down the coast from Maine to Florida and also the west coast.

I feel sure that with proper study and cooperation, something could come out of this controversy that would be of a benefit to all.

Thanking you in advance for your consideration in this matter, I am,

Yours very truly,

HUBERT S. STEES.

REDONDO PLEASURE FISHING, INC.,
Redondo Beach, Calif., May 14, 1957.

SENATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: We would like to go on record for supporting the bill S. 1866 proposed in the Senate of the United States on April 12, 1957, by Mrs. Smith of Maine and Mr. Payne.

Very truly yours,

GORDON MCRAE, President.

Senator MAGNUSON.

MAY 13, 1957.

DEAR SIR: As I stated in the telegram sent you 2 or 3 days ago, I have enclosed copies of the comments on the proposed regulations entitled CG 249. Clipped to them is a guide sheet taken from the regulations themselves.

A careful perusal of these comments will show you the inconsistencies and fallacies inherent in the regulations, and impossibly restrictive sections which are without a doubt discriminatory.

Further, we are unable to understand the type of thinking that will protect 7 passengers, but not 6. Enforcement of these present regulations will cause the vessels which could not pass, to carry 6 passengers, not lessening in any degree the inherent danger represented by an unseaworthy craft. We feel that such a thing defeats its own purpose.