59
ny, you are charged with setting the tolls in order to collect enough
money to cover contingency claims. Mr. McAuliffe's testimony
indicates there are some 36 claims that are either pending or
before the Congress or likely to come before the Commission since
accidents involve cases over $120,000 outside the locks.
Thirty-six claims are likely to come to this Congress for settle-
ment under the current law; and you further stated in your testi-
mony, Mr. McAuliffe, there is no statute of limitations whatsoever
upon those 21 potential claimants who have not yet filed. They can
wait 2, 3, 5, 10, 20 years before filing a claim with the Commission.
In the meantime, the Commission is required on some formula,
apparently using some crystal ball analysis, to assess tolls to cover
those potential claims which has no statute of limitations.
It occurs to me, sir, that your testimony calls for this Congress
immediately to act upon that serious omission. You need a statute
of limitations upon those claims so that you can accurately forecast
your potential liability and the contingencies that the toll collec-
tions must cover.
I would also like to comment, sir, that in your testimony there
appears to be some confusion as to whether or not there is a stat-
ute of limitations affecting judicial review of inside-the-lock dis-
putes which also calls upon this committee and this Congress to
look seriously at correcting that situation and clarifying the status
of those claims.
It seems to me again if there is no statute of limitations on the
judicial review of inside-the-lock claims, that you are terribly
handicapped at knowing what to assess in tolls in order to cover
contingent liabilities.
Lastly, let me ask you this: You have testified that you have on
hand sufficient funds in the tolls already collected as a contingency
to cover the anticipated claims. Is that statement true in view of
the fact that there are 21 claims which you do not yet have that
are estimated to be above $120,000 for which the Commission may
have some liability? And how do you go about estimating that con-
tingent liability until you have done an assessment of the contribu-
tory negligence relationships between the Commission's liability
and that of the crew, master, and passengers of the vessels?
Mr. McAULIFFE. As you point out, it is a very difficult procedure;
but we, first of all, have the experience of any number of years in
handling accidents; and we are watching the rate of accidents. We
see accidents as they occur and we are able, by virtue of the imme-
diate investigation which we make of an accident when it occurs, to
make an estimate for our own purposes of the amount of damage
involved. That estimate is always subject to later, very technical
assessment which is done on the part of the shipowner. But in most
cases, our original estimates are shown to be at least accurate
enough for purposes of laying aside the funds for later paying the
claims.
We did-this goes to a question that Mr. Lent asked earlier-
when we started off our first year of operation under these condi-
tions, we were setting aside a certain amount of money per month
and per fiscal year for accident claims.
We found, as a result of the first year of operation, that we were
not setting aside enough funds because the costs of repairing