should be scrutinized as violations of the antitrust laws as restricting markets and as being in restraint of trade generally and as affording to a particular individual an undue economic dominance of the market place? Mr. McKERNAN. I think they have been asked, Mr. Dingell, from time to time, and there have been restraining orders applied to the processor whenever violations of the antitrust laws have been found. Mr. DINGELL. You are not like the Department of Agriculture, which enforces antitrust laws as against food processors, are you? Mr. McKERNAN. Only under the Fishery Cooperative Marketing Act. Mr. DINGELL. Have you any jurisdiction under the antitrust laws? Mr. McKERNAN. Mr. Stolting, would you answer more specifically? I want to make sure we give the chairman precisely the correct answer. Mr. STOLTING. Yes, Mr. Dingell. Under section 2 of the Fishery Cooperative Marketing Act, the Department does have authority to effect a restraining order if prices of fish products are enhanced; only if they are enhanced. Mr. DINGELL. This does not exempt from the antitrust laws the activities of these producers and these fishermen, canners, and so forth? Mr. STOLTING. That is correct. Mr. DINGELL. So, this question of unduly restraining the liberty of fishermen to choose among his marketing sources is not really involved, is that correct? Mr. STOLTING. Only if prices are enhanced. Mr. DINGELL. Insofar as his choice of market, this section really does not apply? Mr. STOLTING. No. Mr. DINGELL. Would I be fair in saying that perhaps this matter ought to be looked into if the situation so far as the fishermen is as we have heard during this hearing? Mr. McKERNAN. I do not know enough of the facts to give you an affirmative answer here, Mr. Dingell. Mr. DINGELL. Have you anything to add on the point, Mr. McKernan? Mr. McKERNAN. No, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Pelly has suggested that it might be desirable for you to submit to the committee additional information dealing with the very narrow point of whether or not you have had complaints from fishermen regarding the restriction of their market through their contracts dealing with the sale or leasing of these vessels by the cannery owners. Mr. PELLY. You have received complaints from these individuals, certainly, over the years, if their contracts with the packers were such that they felt they were being controlled to the degree that there was discrimination. Mr. McKERNAN. Yes, I will be glad to look into that. I cannot recall any such complaint. Mr. DINGELL. I think it would be useful also to know whether there has been any independent action with regard to this point. I know your agency is not charged with this kind of scrutiny, so I do not think you would be criticized if there is not, but I would like to know whether it has been gone into by the Department of the Interior. (The following letter was received in response to the above request:) Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. BONNER: At the hearings on H.R. 3955 held on June 18, 1965, I was asked to furnish additional information regarding complaints from fish producers covering contracts with packers. Mr. Pelly asked whether or not we have had complaints over the years from individual fishermen-if their contracts with the packers were such that they felt they were being controlled to the degree that there was discrimination. We have not had any complaints recently. In November 1956, we did receive a complaint in the nature of the one you indicate. It was from a Mr. Truman Emberg, Business Manager, Bristol Bay Fish Producers Association, Incorporated, Dillingham, Alaska. Mr. Emberg stated, in his letter to the Secretary of the Interior, that an association of salmon canners known as Alaska Salmon Industry, Incorporated, its member companies, and the Alaska Fishermen's Union had formed an illegal combination in restraint of trade having as its objective the monopolization of the salmon fishery in the Bristol Bay area of Alaska. He asked the Secretary to make an investigation under the authority of the Fishery Cooperative Marketing Act of 1934. A preliminary study of Mr. Emberg's complaint was made by representatives of the Department. It was concluded from the study that the Secretary of the Interior had no jurisdiction over the organizations named by Mr. Emberg since they were not fishery cooperative associations. The complaint was turned over to the Federal Trade Commission since, as was indicated by Mr. Dingell during the hearing, "our agency is not charged with this kind of scrutiny". The Department of the Interior has not taken independent action on complaints of this type. Sincerely yours, DONALD L. MCKERNAN, Director. Mr. EVERETT. I have one or two other questions. In regard to fishery loans made by the Department of the Interior, what effect are they having in this area? Mr. McKERNAN. We have quite a number of fishery loans in Alaska, and we are having quite good success. A number of them were put out on a disaster basis as provided for by this committee after the earthquake. We are doing quite well. I believe it is generally benefiting the small fishermen of northwestern Alaska. Mr. EVERETT. Do the majority of the boatowners who are being financed by the processors in general qualify for fishermen's loans? Mr. MCKERNAN. Many of them would but, on the other hand, many of them would not. The problem, of course, is that they must have a certain amount of financial stability and, as you know, Mr. Everett, we look into their background very thoroughly. A number of them would not qualify. Mr. EVERETT. What effect has the fishery vessel construction subsidy act had in the area we are discussing? Mr. McKERNAN. It has not had much effect on the very small fisherman yet. It may in the future, but at the present time it has had really no effect on the kinds of fishermen we are talking about. Mr. EVERETT. This bill would authorize fishermen's unions to act as an association and do the things an association may lawfully do. What are some of the things that the association would do in bargaining for the ex-vessel sale of fish? I think from the testimony we heard yesterday, they could refuse to sell and probably could refuse to fish. Are these the issues that you think would be considered in their negotiations for the sale of fish? Mr. McKERNAN. Yes. I think in most parts of Alaska of course, the bargaining process is enhanced and made quite lively by the fact that the run is coming in from the ocean and if the fishermen and processors have not reached agreement by the time the run comes in, of course they miss the entire season. Therefore, there is considerable pressure on both the fishermen as well as the processors to reach agree ment. Mr. PELLY. Is it not true that last year in the Cordova area the bargaining broke down and the marketing association could not get the price they wanted and, as a result, as already mentioned in the testimony, the Japanese processing vessels were brought right in there and they made a deal with these fishermen? Mr. McKERNAN. Yes. This bill in its present form, which perhaps goes too far, might have helped that situation if there had been a group of processors who were doing the negotiating rather than a marketing association dealing only with individual canners. Furthermore, of course, if the union fishermen themselves had had a say in this matter, then one might wonder whether or not they might have moderated the point of view of the marketing association. In other words, you would have had a broader voice in the price. The reason that the canneries in Prince William Sound did not open was entirely price, as far as I know. There just was a difference in price. The canners involved felt that they could not market the fish at this price, and the marketing association felt they did not want to fish under these conditions, and therefore the negotiations broke down. I would guess, if I had to guess, had this legislation been in effect, it might have helped that situation." Mr. DINGELL. Is there anything further? Mr. PELLY. I just want to make one observation. I feel we have one of the most resourceful drafters of legislation I know in the chairman and he is enlisted in our cause, and we shall try to come up with satisfactory legislation. I wish again to express my appreciation. Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Pelly. (Off the record.) Mr. DINGELL. The committee will stand adjourned until the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.) MISCELLANEOUS FISHERIES LEGISLATION PACIFIC HALIBUT COMMISSION THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 1965 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Dingell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. DINGELL. The Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation will come to order. This morning the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation will consider very briefly in open hearing the matter of providing facilities for the International Pacific Halibut Commission. The bills to be heard are identical and they are H.R. 9734, by Mr. Pelly; H.R. 9801, by Mr. Adams, and H.R. 10174, by Mr. Meeds. S. 1975, also identical, has passed the Senate and will also be considered this morning. (The bills and agency reports follow:) [H.R. 9734, H.R. 9801, H.R. 10174, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] BILLS To amend the Northern Pacific Halibut Act in order to provide certain facilities for the International Pacific Halibut Commission Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1937, as amended (16 U.S.C. 772-772i), is amended by inserting at the end thereof a new section as follows: "SEC. 11. (a) The Secretary of State is authorized to provide, by contract, grant, or otherwise, facilities for office and any other necessary space for the Commission. Such facilities shall be located on or near the campus of the University of Washington in the State of Washington and shall be provided without regard to the cost-sharing provisions in the convention. "(b) There is authorized to be appropriated such amount, not in excess of $500,000, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section." [S. 1975, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] AN ACT To amend the Northern Pacific Halibut Act in order to provide certain facilities for the International Pacific Halibut Commission Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1937, as amended (16 U.S.C. 772-772i), is amended by inserting at the end thereof a new section as follows: "SEC. 11. (a) The Secretary of State is authorized to provide, by contract, grant, or otherwise, facilities for office and any other necessary space for the Commission. Such facilities shall be located on or near the campus of the Uni 67 versity of Washington in the State of Washington and shall be provided without regard to the cost-sharing provisions in the Convention. "(b) There is authorized to be appropriated such amount, not in excess of $500,000, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section." Passed the Senate July 7, 1965. Attest: FELTON M. JOHNSTON, Secretary. Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. BONNER: Your Commitee has requested this Department's comments on H.R. 9734, a bill "To amend the Northern Pacific Halibut Act in order to provide certain facilties for the International Pacific Halibut Commission." We recommend the enactment of H.R. 9734. The bill amends the Northern Pacific Halibut Act by adding a new section. This section authorizes the Secretary of State to provide office and other facilties for the International Pacific Halibut Commission. These facilties would be located on or near the campus of the University of Washington. The Commission now occupies space on the campus, but the use of these facilities will terminate in the fall of 1966. The association of the Commission with the University of Washington has been highly advantageous. We therefore favor this proposal which will permit this association to continue. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, CLARENCE F. POUTZKE, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., August 10, 1965. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of July 12, 1965, inviting the comments of the Department of State on H.R. 9734, a bill “To amend the Northern Pacific Halibut Act in order to provide certain facilities for the International Pacific Halibut Commission." By this bill the Secretary of State would be authorized to provide, by contract, grant, or otherwise, facilities for office and any other necessary space for the Commission, at an amount not in excess of $500,000. Such facilities would be located on or near the campus of the University of Washington in the State of Washington and would be provided without regard to the cost-sharing provisions in the Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. The problem to which the proposed legislation is addressed concerns the imminent loss of the Commission's present office and laboratory accommodations on the campus of the University of Washington, and the possible participation of the United States Government in the construction of a new headquarters on or near the same campus. The Department strongly recommends the enactment of H.R. 9734. Our conviction is that the best interests of the United States Government would be served by having the Commission's headquarters located in this country as heretofore. We further believe that the association of the Commission with the University of Washington has been advantageous and therefore favor the establishment of such facilities on or near the campus. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, DOUGLAS MACARTHUR II, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. |