FEDERAL SUPPLY MANAGEMENT (Overseas Survey) MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1951 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES The subcommittee met Monday, October 22, 1951, at 9 a. m. in the Territorial Senate chamber, Federal Building, Juneau, Alaska, Hon. Herbert C. Bonner (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Members of Congress present: Herbert C. Bonner, chairman; W. J. Bryan Dorn, and George Meader. Staff representatives present: Christine Ray Davis, chief clerk; Thomas A. Kennedy, general counsel; Herbert Roback, staff member, and Ray Ward, Bureau of the Budget. Witnesses present: J. W. McKinley, chairman of Chamber of Commerce of Juneau, Alaska; R. Boochever, attorney, in behalf of chamber of commerce; F. O. Eastaugh, attorney, in behalf of chamber of commerce; Francis C. Hyde, Wallace Westfall, George Baggen, Jr., R. J. Sommers, G. E. Hamilton, Walter Sperl, O. R. Rutherford, Earl Ohmer, Ralph Reischl, Larry Fitzpatrick, A. F. Parker, Admiral Joseph Greenspun, United States Coast Guard, commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District; Commander Paul Savonis, United States Coast Guard, Office of the Chief, Merchant Marine Safety Division; Commander E. C. Hawley, United States Coast Guard, Chief, Merchant Marine Safety Division, Seventeenth Coast Guard District; Capt. G. W. Callbeck, United States Coast Guard, Chief, Merchant Marine Safety Division, Seventeenth Coast Guard Division; Lt. H. M. Kelsey, United States Coast Guard, district legal officer, Seventeenth Coast Guard District; Eugene R. Williams, chief yeoman, United States Coast Guard, official Coast Guard reporter, Twelfth Coast Guard District; and Steve Larson Homer. Mr. BONNER. Ladies and gentlemen, this is an informal hearing. I happen to be the chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Merchant Marine Committee of the House of Representatives. Your able Delegate to Congress, Mr. Bartlett, came to see me with respect to some problems that you are having here regarding merchant-marine regulations as supervised by the Coast Guard. Mr. Bartlett desired the subcommittee of the Merchant Marine to come to Alaska to hear this question. At that time, the Expenditures Committee of the House NOTE.-Asterisks denote classified material deleted for security reasons. of Representatives, of which I am a member also, and which has under its jurisdiction all expenditures of the Federal Government, decided to send a field group, under my direction, to look into the expenditures of the various Government agencies. This subcommittee has made studies of the supply management of the armed services, and surplus, and scrap problems of the Federal Government. We have visited the depot at Atlanta, Ga., defense installations in New York City, and adjacent areas along the eastern seaboard of the United States. The only time this subcommittee could make an overseas trip was during a recess of Congress. Certainly I or no other Member of Congress would be absent from Washington while Congress is in session. I told Mr. Bartlett of the proposed visit of this committee to this area and that among the members of the Expenditures Committee would be myself and Mr. Shelley, of California, who is also a member of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Unfortunately, owing to illness in his family, Mr. Shelley cannot join us. That explains, and you will understand the informality of this hearing. As chairman of the Coast Guard subcommittee in the House of Representatives, naturally I am interested in the functions of the Coast Guard and in the duties of the Coast Guard with respect to the citizen of the country. All my life I have been a great admirer of the Coast Guard. It is one of the oldest agencies of the Government. It has a glorious history. They have always been fair and just in their dealings with people and groups over whom they might have supervision. In times of distress we are all anxious to have the assistance of the Coast Guard. I happen to be from North Carolina near Cape Hatteras, and I know of the feats of heroism that have been performed by the Coast Guard. They are men of fine character and ability. They never know when duty calls whether they will come back or not, but their idea is to aid. We start out on that premise this morning. I don't know who is the spokesman for those who have complaints. Our time will be limited because this subcommittee must depart at 12 o'clock; so, I would like to have whoever speaks for the complainants to take not more than an hour and 15 minutes. STATEMENT OF J. W. McKINLEY, CHAIRMAN OF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, JUNEAU, ALASKA Mr. MCKINLEY. My name is J. W. McKinley, and I am the chairman of the chamber of commerce committee dealing with this particular situation. We have prepared a brief and have several witnesses concerning this matter. We will try to make the various statements as short as possible. We are concerned with the transportation by small boats and barges in this particular area of southeastern Alaska, which you will see here [pointing to map] covers the whole of southeastern Alaska. Unfortunately, like other places, we have only a few roads around the main towns. There are no connecting roads between one site and another and no roads between our cities and other outlying places. All of our transportation between one town and another and between the city of Juneau and outlying communities is necessarily by vessel. I would like to introduce Mr. Robert Boochever, who will give you a short summation. STATEMENT OF ROBERT BOOCHEVER, ATTORNEY, JUNEAU, ALASKA Mr. BOOCHEVER. My name is Robert Boochever, I am an attorney at Juneau, Alaska, and I have prepared a brief on behalf of the chamber of commerce. At the outset, the Chamber of Commerce of Juneau wishes it understood that we are deeply appreciative of the Coast Guard services rendered to us and to the people of this area, and we feel that they are doing a great job. We are not criticizing their work. We do feel, however, in certain respects and in certain interpretations of regulations, that a discrimination is being worked on this section of Alaska. Particularly, we refer to the classification of inside waters in this area as coastwise or limited coastwise waters. As you probably know, the act of 1895 entitled the Secretary of Commerce to make a line between the waters of the high seas and the inland waters, and that function has subsequently been turned over to the United States Coast Guard to designate the line. There are numerous acts of Congress which have been passed and which pertain as to whether vessels pass beyond that line designated by the Coast Guard. We feel that the Coast Guard has interpreted the area which is to be designated coastwise waters in a different light here than they have elsewhere and that it works to our detriment. We are a section of a community which has no means of communications and transportation other than small boats and airplanes. Planes, quite obviously, are small and can't handle heavy equipment. peculiarly depend on boat transportation in this area. The effect of these regulations has been to limit from use the bottoms that are necessary to the isolated communities in this area and, as a result, we had a considerable loss of business, of industry, and a considerable excessive expenses. We feel, as pointed out in the brief, that the regulations of the Coast Guard themselves do not lend to the classification that is being given to our waters. The Coast Guard has prescribed the general basis and purpose of boundary lines and rules to establish the lines between the high seas and inland waters. I would like to say we don't pretend to be experts on Coast Guard regulations. We know but a smattering about them, and doubtless the Coast Guard officials can straighten us out on a number of points of it; and, as proposed in the Regulations 82.1 of the Coast Guard, it states: We GENERAL BASIS AND PURPOSE OF BOUNDARY LINES.-By virtue of the authority vested in the Commandant of the Coast Guard under section 101 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (11 F. R. 7875), and section 2 of the act of February 19, 1895, as amended (28 Stat. 672, 33 U. S. C. 151), the regulations in this part are prescribed to establish the lines dividing the high seas from rivers, harbors, and inland waters in accordance with the intent of the statute and to obtain its correct and uniform administration. The waters inshore of the lines described in this part are "inland waters" and upon them the inland rules and pilot rules made in pursuance thereof apply. The waters outside of the lines described in this part are the high seas and upon them the international rules apply. The regulations in this part do not apply to the Great Lakes or their connecting and tributary waters. That act is by Congress, and now the Coast Guard has established regulations to determine the line. There has been no specific line designated for these waters other than a load line for the Load Line Act, as far as I know. There is a general regulation where no particular line is designated and that follows in section 82.2, which states: GENERAL RULES FOR INLAND WATERS.-At all buoyed entrances from seaward to bays, sounds, rivers, or other estuaries for which specific lines are not described in this part, the waters inshore of a line approximately parallel with the general trend of the shore, drawn through the outermost buoy or other aid to navigation of any system of aids, are inland waters, and upon them the inland rules and pilot rules made in pursuance thereof apply. * We take that to mean, if that section was followed, it would result in all the waters inside the line running along the outer edge of the shore line would be classified as "inland waters," and we feel that they should be classified as "inland waters." There are numerous harbors where a boat could go if there are storms. There is not the situation that you have off the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific coast or off the coast of Florida; that is, where a boat may be many miles at sea. We don't have that. We have sheltered harbors at various intervals along our waters here. We feel that the classification of these waters as "coastwise," whether it is due to the fact or feeling that they are not well chartered, is not any justification to single out this area for a different basis of classification than an area in the States. We have attached to our brief the Coast Guard charts indicating the line between "inland waters" and "high seas" in regard to the States, and it can be seen that if a similar rule was taken here our waters would be "inland waters." We feel that if that change in the regulations were made it would do a great deal to solve our problems and we would be subject to less stringent rules, and less requirements, and our boats can operate and serve these communities. In the same connection, the Coast Guard has taken the attitude that inside these waters seagoing barges must be inspected once a year if over 100 tons; and, if they strike the beach, they must be inspected again each time. It happens that much of our equipment, and so forth, can only be served to small communities through these seagoing barges. Due to the fact this is a small pioneer type of community, we don't have drydocks big enough to take these barges. The barges are no different than prior to these requirements now. For years they have been doing this service. The authority under statute of 1908 (46 U. S. C., sec. 395) states: The local inspectors of steamboats shall at least once in every year inspect the hull and equipment of every seagoing barge of 100 gross tons or over. * We contend that barges plying these waters shall not be considered as seagoing barges, and we ask to have eliminated such from these waters. I have set up all these arguments at more length in this brief. I don't want to take up more of your time at the present. I will submit this brief right now; and, if the representatives of the Coast Guard would like copies, I will be glad to give you one. (Copy of brief accepted by the Coast Guard and marked "Juneau, Alaska Exhibit 1." See p. 340.) Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Boochever. I would like for the record to show that I regret that I overlooked mentioning at the beginning of this session that I am accompanied by Mr. William Jennings Bryan Dorn, a Member of the House of Representatives, from South Carolina. I also overlooked paying my respects to the admiral |