Mr. LENNON. So they don't have to write. They don't have to be able to read either, do they? The questions are read to them and they can give them back orally, can't they?

Mr. WALTON. They can, yes.

Mr. LENNON. They could but that is their right, is it not, if they can neither read nor write?

Mr. WALTON. No.

Mr. LENNON. No what? You say one thing and the next time you say something else.

Mr. WALTON. The actual pilot license is a written examination. Mr. LENNON. In all instances?

Mr. WALTON. Yes, sir. They can get a motorboat operator's license or something like that on an oral examination.

Mr. LENNON. Do you know anything about the statistical data with respect to the facilities in the years 1962 and 1963 in this industry?

Mr. WALTON. No, sir: I am not too familiar with that.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Walton.

Mr. WALTON. Thank you.

Mr. CLARK. I would like to ask Mr. Shaver, Mr. Russell, and Mr. Meyer and Mr. Jackson from Portland, Oreg., if they will just come up and sit there and could one speak for the group and insert in the record their remarks, since you are all from Portland, Oreg., I wonder if you would all sit there and one of you speak for the group and the rest insert their statements in the record?

Would that be sufficient?

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Shaver is chairman of our association. He is our spokesman.

Mr. SHAVER. Mr. Russell will not appear today. He is detained. Mr. CLARK. We are glad to have you. You have come a long way. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE SHAVER, MANAGER, SHAVER TRANSPORTATION CO., PORTLAND, OREG.; ACCOMPANIED BY MR. F. 0. MEYER, PRESIDENT, KNAPPTON TOWBOAT CO. AND MR. GEORGE H. JACKSON, PRESIDENT, WESTERN TRANSPORTATION CO.

Mr. SHAVER. My name is George Shaver. I am manager of the Shaver Transportation Co., Portland, Oreg., which is a tugboat and bargeline firm operating on the Columbia and Willamette Rivers and their tributaries. Our company, with its subsidiaries, operates 20 towboats and 16 barges. Our firm, which employs 90 persons, has engaged in water transportation on these waters since 1880, operating a fleet of boats which at one time consisted of 25 stern wheel inspected steam vessels.

In my own experience of 25 years, I have worked aboard towboats of all kinds and have served in the capacity of deckhand, engineer, and master; on shore as the dispatcher, marine superintendent, and operating manager.

I appear before this committee as the chairman and spokesman for the Columbia River Towboat Association. This association is a nonprofit trade association representing 16 member firms, all of whom are

common carrier tug and barge operators located throughout the Pacific Northwest on rivers, bays, and in some cases, coast wise and offshore service. These various firms employ approximately 1,000 employees and operate 136 tugboats ranging from 220 to 4,500 horsepower. The number of barges employed in our locality is 195, ranging in capacity from approximately 500 to in excess of 10,000 tons. The association's executive offices are located at 1200 Jackson Tower, Portland, Oreg.

The board of trustees of the Columbia River Towboat Association. which is made up of executives of the barge and towing industry of the Pacific Northwest, has directed that our association send a representative to Washington to appear before this committee to express our opposition to the legislation under consideration, and I appear to personally represent the organization in this respect.

By the nature of the employment of our vessels in varying types of trades, some of the vessels come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard. This, of course, results in our members being well aware of the impact of this legislation upon their industry, as we have current knowledge of the activities of the Coast Guard.

We consider this proposed legislation to be punitive in nature and not wholly related to the practical operation of a transportation industry. In our own instance this is obvious in noting that at one time our firm operated 25 inspected steam vessels; today we operate only one which must be subsidized by the local port association.

Although it is quite true that the diesel powered towboats are uninspected by the Coast Guard, the majority however are inspected by another group. The acquisition of marine insurance generally requires that every vessel be inspected by a marine surveyor, generally designated by the insurance company or its agent. This surveyor inspects the vessel and determines the suitability of the vessel for its intended trade in the following respects:

Its seaworthiness, its construction, and its compliance with certain navigation laws. Also this inspection inquires further as to the interrelation of the vessel or vessels to the various waters and locales in which it will operate. The results of these inspections have a significant bearing upon the various operators in the respect that they directly affect the amount of insurance premium assigned and assessed for the insurance required.

In almost all cases these surveyors appointed by the underwriters have many years of practical experience and training in working within our industry. Not only do they provide a financial influence, they further furnish us with guidelines which have been estabilshed by years of experience.

The marine surveyor also provides an additional benefit in this industry by virtue of the fact that he, or other specialists, bring their knowledge and recommendations to bear upon the activities of the fishing vessels and in some cases the recreational boaters. We do not understand why in this area of watercraft operation, namely, fishing and recreation, which so vastly outnumbers our own, is disregarded by the Coast Guard in this proposed legislation.

The safety record of our towing industry does not substantiate the imposition of regulation as it is proposed in this legislation. Our safety record is good and we do not feel that further regulation will

improve it. Certainly there is already significant motivation in maintaining safety precautions resulting from our moral obligations, investments, not to mention the impact of insurance ratings which increase the costs of any imprudent operator.

In this industry of ours we have a measure of our safety record. The cost of marine insurance is generally in direct proportion to the safety record of any operator. At this time our marine insurance costs are as a whole decreasing which we feel is a reflection of our own sincere efforts in this regard.

It is interesting to note that the cost of acquiring insurance is unaffected whether the vessel is Coast Guard inspected or not.

The principal probelm in this area of safety on the waterways does not lie within the towing industry. The accident records displayed by the pleasure craft operators would indicate that the regulations the Coast Guard is attempting to impose on this industry would be best directed to the recreational and pleasure craft operator.

Our members are continually attempting to enlist the aid of local law enforcement agencies to enforce the navigating laws. We have vigorously supported the various organizations attempting to educate the recreational boater.

The proposed legislation is intended to prescribe the design and construction and repair of towing vessels as well as the waters in which these vessels may be operated and in my own instance I would cite that my family has been engaged in this industry for over 80 years. We have invested our capital, time, and knowledge in developing these waterways. We do not feel that the Coast Guard for example an inspector who has served 3 years at sea, is well qualified to advise us as to the use of a particular type of vessel, its construction, or how it should be operated.

In view of what we consider significant costs of construction it is unreasonable to consider that any operator would construct a vessel that he did not consider to be constructed in the safest manner possible. The procedures of good business would dictate such an economic requirement.

As can be seen a very significant increase in the number of personnel employed by the Coast Guard will be required. It is a well-known fact that the size of towing industry exceeds the size of our existing offshore merchant marine. It is, therefore, obvious that the cost of the fees to cover the inspection as well as by the ill-considered requirements that are enforced upon us. Some segments of our industry presently must operate under such regulations so we are well aware of the difficulties and expense involved under this enforcement.

In prescribing manning requirements the Coast Guard is assuming an operational requirement without adequate knowledge of the varying employment of the vessels. We must acknowledge that in the area of managerial discretion, a coalition of union policies and Coast Guard enforcement procedures would inevitably result in "featherbedding" on the towboats.

In our own instance we have an obvious example. Our firm initially operated 25 steam vessels of adequate horsepower for the service in which they were employed. As a direct result of the manning requirements imposed by the Coast Guard, these vessels have been dis

mantled and their place taken by uninspected diesel vessels employing reasonable manning scales commensurate with their use.

These uninspected manning scales were mutually agreed to by our association and the union. It is interesting to note that the safety record in our own company has improved by the employment of uninspected vessels.

Regulations by their nature tend to become more restrictive and complicated and inhibit the formulation of new ideas and practices with their accompanying economic advantages. It is regrettably true that the organizations employing these regulations destroy the impact of improved technology and tend to encumber an industry with an archaic operation.

Regrettably, in our era, the U.S. Coast Guard personnel is devoid of any induividuals having prior background or experience in the towing industry.

To attempt to regulate this industry with an organization as unfamiliar with the majority of our problems as is the Coast Guard, is an illogical approach.

It is in the area of licensing and certifying that the towing industry stands to be most severely damaged. We cannot accept the reasoning that the Coast Guard can have a better evaluation of an employee than his employer. Our industry expends significant time and effort too in hiring qualified personnel and training them. The Coast Guard would attempt to substitute a written test encompassing 3 days as a criteria for ability as contrasted with perhaps a 10-year service record with a daily report on the man's activities. Generally speaking, the Coast Guard today has substituted the criteria of mere service tenure as an indication of ability, eliminating the proper approach of performance and personal habits.

To better emphasize this problem I would like to cite that at the present time we are attempting to man an inspected vessel, that is, a tug which requires U.S. Coast Guard licensed personnel. The Coast Guard refuses to accept any cognizance of a man's training in the towboat industry as a basis for serving aboard this vessel. Instead, they endorse the position that the members of the crew of an oceangoing ship are those which, in their opinion, are properly experienced to operate this tugboat.

As I have served on both I may say that there is little that is even similar. In conclusion, on this particular point, I do not feel that the U.S. Coast Guard has proper cognizance of our problems or needs, and their approach is unsuitable for licensing under the present proposal. It is, therefore, our opinion that a more realistic attitude on licensing, if required, must be adopted to satisfactorily serve the needs of our industry. This licensing must emphasize the training and service of crew members who have served in the towboat industry and received their training there. Further, the granting of this license must give credence to the opinions and recommendations of managerial personnel.

In the opinion of this organization it would be a grave mistake to impose such a complex inspection and control program as is promulgated in this legislation. It would undeniably result in increasing the costs both to the Government and to the towboat industry. In addition it would increase the complexities and restrictions confronting

us, and in general would detract from the contribution made by this industry to the national economy.

In summary we feel that the imposition of such restrictive and destructive legislation contained in H.R. 156, 723, and 7491 is unwarranted when compared to the facts of our safety record, and we urge your committee not to report them favorable.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Shaver, for your statement. (The documents referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF F. O. MEYER, PRESIDENT, KNAPPTON TOWBOAT Co., PORTLAND, OREG.

My name is F. O. Meyer and I am president of the Knappton Towboat Co., 110 Southeast Caruthers Street, Portland. Oreg. I have been employed by this company since 1931, working through the various departments to my present position. I am here to testify on behalf of the Knappton Towboat Co. in opposition to House bill H.R. 723 and H.R. 156.

My company operates a fleet of 16 towboats and 4 barges and is certificated by the ICC as a common carrier by water on the Columbia River from its mouth to Bonneville Dam and to head of navigation of the Willamette River. Our company has operated many steam tugs under Government inspection laws. The first diesel engine was installed in 1925 and since that time, all of our steam vessels have been replaced with diesel engines. The reason for these changes can be traced directly to the inspection and manning requirements of these vessels by the Federal Government. I very well remember the old steamboat inspection service under the U.S. Department of Commerce and now under the U.S. Coast Guard. It was very costly and a great burden, such as making the proper inspection dates and laying up the vessels for these required inspections.

Small vessels would take at least 3 days for inspection and the larger vessels would take at least 1 week. Breaking pipelines, removing firebrick from the fire boxes, putting hydrostatic pressures on the boilers, making repairs as recommended or directed by the inspectors whether agreed to by the owners or not. In dealing with inspectors, you are dealing with individuals, who had to be handled with "kid gloves" as each, it seemed, could read the rules in a different way as they wished it to be.

It seems to me from everything I can find out that the sponsors of these bills had in mind safety as their main interest. I cannot understand how the inspection and manning of tugs would correct this considering the limited number of towing vessels and if it would, why not include fishing vessels and pleasure craft? What is the difference between a pleasure vessel, fishing vessel, or towing vessel of the same size and horsepower? There are more fishing vessels operating on or out of the Columbia River and they operate with smaller

crews.

My associates from the Columbia River who are here at the hearing will cover other phases of the objections of the Columbia River tugboat operators. I know from experience what I have here pointed out to the committee, and I urge you to defeat these two bills

STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. JACKSON, PRESIDENT, WESTERN TRANSPORTATION Co., PORTLAND, OREG.

My name is George H. Jackson. I am president of Western Transportation Co., in Portland, Oreg. My company employes 285 people and operates a fleet of 7 tugs and 43 barges on the Columbia and Willamette Rivers.

The tugs range in power from 220 to 3,200 horsepower and in length from 42 to 140 feet. The barge fleet includes covered freight barges, oil barges, flat barges, and bin barges. Commodities moved include general freight, paper, oil, sulfur, lumber, chips, hog fuel, rafted logs, steel. Last year the movement of these commodities totaled 77 million ton-miles.

My own experience covers over 20 years in the towboat business during which time I have served as dispatcher, personnel manager, terminal manager, operating manager, and vice president before becoming president.

56-150-66--17