We also question the advisability of making an inadequate distinction between research and training vessels, so we really question the advisability of extending it to research and training vessels as suggested by Interior. This, we feel, is just another notch in the only protection that American fishermen have, and that is the protection of prohibiting foreign fishing vessels from landing their catch in the United States. I do not want to say any more than that.

I also wish to comment on this business of sanctions because we have been on the other end of sanctions for many years and we have had considerable trouble and increasing trouble since 1961, especially in 1962, and when we had a very severe crisis in 1963.

I wish to pose this question to the committee: To what extent will other countries who have conflicting views with us on the extent of the territorial sea imitate S. 1988 and providing imprisonment and mandatory fish cargo for future penalties as suggested in this bill and thereby cause hardship to U.S. fishing fleets that merely obey the position of the United States with respect to the extent of the territorial seas of the United States and thereby carry the burden of this country's policy of the freedom of the seas?

In considering this question this committee must recognize the fact that there exists no world uniformity on the extent of the territorial seas. In addition, conflicts are worldwide and are increasing in number, and severity.

The development of high seas fisheries, the concentration of efforts by many nations to look to the sea for their pressing food needs, even the cold war seems to inspire incidents at a greater rate.

I wish you also to consider the fact that the U.S. fishing fleet is privately owned, and that in this battle of seizure and imprisonment and forfeitures, it seems to us that the private individual carries a great risk of loss. I would like to submit at a later date a confidential letter, at least it would be treated confidential to the committee, to indicate to the committee the tremendous loss sustained by our own vessels last year by a well-known seizure off the South American coast. The Fishermen's Protective Act applies to the owners of the vessel. We had fines that applied to masters and we were fortunate in cutting off fines that were applied to crewmembers.

The actual recovery under the Fishermen's Protective Act was around $9,000. The estimated total loss arising from the seizure to that vessel owner was around $34,000.

This loss was not recoverable either under Federal legislation or by insurance coverage.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Mr. Chairman, the bell has rung. I wonder if the witness could have a few days within which to prepare his statement, revise it, extend it. I would like to see his full statement in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. I directed that the full statement be placed in the record.

Mr. DOWNING. He is making a good statement, Mr. Chairman. It should go in the record.

Mr. FELANDO. I am sorry we had this limitation of time. I would be happy to stay over tomorrow. We suddenly got word of this hearing rather quickly and had to make a quick trip and I arrived Tuesday morning. This bill has some

The CHAIRMAN. The committee cannot meet tomorrow.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, would the witness in his remarks, when he supplies them for the record, comment on the gentleman from California, Mr. Wilson's testimony? He had a little different bill than anybody and I thought maybe you would be especially competent to express your views on this bill.

Mr. FELANDO. Yes, there was one addition that I feel there should be an actual reference to the Nicolson Act as suggested by Admiral Roland in the Senate hearing and that was one of the suggestions of Congressman Wilson I think should be

Mr. PELLY. If you would prepare that carefully and turn it over for the record we will get a good idea of exactly how you feel about that particular testimony.

Mr. FELANDO. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be placed in the record.

(The following material was received for inclusion in the record:) STATEMENT OF AUGUST FELANDO, GENERAL MANAGER, AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am August Felando, general manager of the American Tunaboat Association. The ATA is a nonprofit corporation, a fishery cooperative organized under the laws of the State of California. The membership of the ATA is composed exclusively of tuna vessel owners. Our members provide over 60 percent of the total catch of tropical tunas landed in continental United States.

First, I wish to direct the attention of this committee to one of the basic policy issues raised by S. 1988. Second, to declare that the ATA opposes any language in S. 1988 that permits foreign-flag vessels to land their catch in a U.S. port in contravention of 46 United States Code, section 251, and finally, to raise our points of view regarding the penalty provisions of section 2 (a) and (b) of S. 1988.

First as to the policy issue

S. 1988 has taken a position on the issue of whether the U.S. Government should establish exclusive fishing rights for U.S. citizens within the territorial waters of the United States and in any Continental Shelf fishery resource which appertains to the United States. S. 1988 establishes a policy that rejects the concept of exclusiveness. First, it provides an exception to the doctrine of exclusiveness in the form of "an international agreement to which the United States is a party." Second, another exception is provided when it authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to permit foreign fishermen to fish upon certification by the Secretary of the Interior when the latter does two things (1) finds that such permission would be in the national interest, and (2) also certifies that the State, Commonwealth or territory directly affected concurred in allowing the exception.

In our opinion, S. 1988 enunciates the correct fishery policy for the entire fishing industry of the United States. There is strong appeal for the argument that citizens of the United States should have preferential fishing rights over foreigners within the territorial waters of the United States, and that such preference should take the form of exclusive rights. We agree that U.S. fishermen should have preferential fishing rights over foreign fishermen within the territorial waters of the United States, but we do not believe that these rights should be exclusive.

The ATA takes the position that Congress should not adopt a law that establishes a blanket policy of excluding all foreign fishermen from fishing within the territorial waters of the United States.

One reason why the United States should not adopt a blanket policy of excluding all foreign vessels from engaging in fishing for tuna within the territorial waters of the United States, is founded upon our opinion that such a policy may frustrate or actually destroy a conservation program now being worked out by the United States in cooperation with the countries of Mexico, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Panama. I refer to the Inter-American Tropical

Tuna Commission, and the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.). If we deny foreign fishing vessels, which are operated by citizens of countries that agree to implement the conservation recommendations of the IATTC, it is conceivable that these countries would charge us with bad faith. Bad faith in the actual practice of conservation regulations, in that U.S. fishermen can fish tuna in their territorial waters to the exclusion of foreign tuna fishermen.

Then, it would be possible that these foreign countries would react in establishing their own fenced-in tuna areas to the exclusion of U.S. and other fishermen. The buildup of these various fenced-off areas would destroy the maintenance, inspection, and operation of the conservation measures adopted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. The tunas are migratory and international in scope, and in particular, the tuna populations in the eastern tropical Pacific extend from Chile to California, and for hundreds of miles off the coast. Certainly, the atmosphere of suspicion alone would create problems of implementing the recommendations of the IATTC.

If the objectives of a conservation policy on a particular fishery are advanced by the granting of such permission, then such permission is within the national interest. In the matter of tuna fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, such action would assist the tuna conservation objectives of the countries that participate in the IATTC, and thus be in the national interest of the United States.

There is another reason why the United States should not adopt a blanket policy of excluding foreign vessels from engaging in fishing within the territorial waters. Latin American countries have been allowing U.S. fishermen to fish within their territorial waters as recognized by the United States for decades. In some cases, U.S. fishermen have been purchasing foreign licenses from certain countries for about 50 years. Our tuna bait boat fleet must fish for bait in bait grounds located on the beach or within 3 miles of the coastline. These vessels must have the bait before fishing for tuna. The right to fish within 3 miles of the coast is essential to the existence of the tuna fleet. In some locations in the eastern Pacific Ocean, tuna are caught within 3 miles of the coastline. If the United States should act so as to expressly exclude foreign fishermen from engaging within the U.S. territorial waters, then the United States should expect retaliatory action from countries that compete directly with U.S. tuna fishermen for the frozen or raw tuna market in the United States.

There are sufficient safeguards in S. 1988 to make sure that the right to fish within the territorial waters of the United States would not be given indiscriminately to foreign fishermen. And especially to foreign fishermen who tend to violate conservation rules, or who merely practice fishing activities as incidental to their real job of endangering the security of the United States. Under S. 1988, the Secretary of the Interior must certify that such permission would be in the national interest.

It is for these reasons that the ATA takes the position that S. 1988 does assert a correct national fishery policy and one that should be adopted by the Congress. With respect to the right of foreign fishing vessels to land their catch in a U.S. port

The ATA opposes the granting of this right to foreign fishermen. The granting of this right would destroy the effectiveness of 46 U.S.C. 251. At the present time, the U.S. tuna fleet is faced with the fact that foreign-produced frozen or raw tuna can be landed in the United States duty free. To allow foreign fishing fleets the additional competitive advantage of landing their catches would destroy the U.S.-flag tuna fleet. In the resulting fight for survival, our members would most probably be forced to change flag, and attempt to compete as a runaway-flag tuna fleet. Our members would be forced to build foreign, employ alien crews, and do everything necessary to act as a foreign fleet. Other inestimable harm would result from action that would allow foreign fishing vessels to land their catches in U.S. ports. Dislocation of canneries would result the canner would seek to place his cannery in that State, territory, or commonwealth that would permit foreign-flag vessels to land.

We suggest, therefore, that the committee delete the landing privilege provided by S. 1988, that the legislative history of the bill indicate the intent of Congress to reaffirm the policy established by 46 U.S.C. 251, and that a new section 5 be

adopted, making reference to 46 U.S.C. 251, and incorporating the landing restrictions of such law. During Senate hearing, Admiral Roland of the U.S. Coast Guard made such a similar suggestion.

As to the matter of the penalties in S. 1988

We suggest to the committee the following question: To what extent will other countries, who have conflicting views with us on the extent of the territorial seas, imitate S. 1988 in providing imprisonment and mandatory fish cargo forfeiture penalties, and thereby cause hardships to U.S. fishing fleets that merely obey the position of the United States with respect to the extent of the territorial seas, and thereby carry the burden of this country's policy of freedom of the seas. In considering this question, this committee must recognize the fact that there exists no world uniformity on the extent of the territorial sea. In addition, conflicts on this issue are worldwide and are increasing in number. The development of high seas fisheries, the concentration of efforts by many nations to look to the sea for their pressing food needs, and even the fact of the cold war all help increase the incident rate of the seizure problem.

Consider also the fact that the U.S. fishing fleet is privately owned, and that in this battle, of seizures and resulting imprisonment of fishermen and forfeiture of their property, the privately owned fleet can be hurt faster and more severely than a Government-owned fishing fleet.

Recognize also, that the Fishermen's Protective Act (22 U.S.C. et seq.) only reimburses the U.S. fishing vessel owner for fines imposed on him when his vessel is seized and detained unlawfully on the high seas.

With permission of the chairman, I would like to submit a confidential letter to him and the members of this committee, explaining the losses sustained by our vessel owners in recent seizures on the high seas. Losses not recoverable under Federal law or by insurance.

This committee should also recognize the fact that the United States apparently has limitations on its ability to protect U.S. fishermen who are seized on the high seas; that is, high seas recognized by the United States but not by the country who seizes the vessel.

A fine assessed against the vessel is the proper and expedient sanction, because the value of the vessel assures payment of the fine, otherwise the vessel is sold on a marshal's sale to effectuate payment. Fishermen generally work on a share basis, and don't get rich. As suggested in the Senate hearing report, some owners may allow the imprisoned crew to stay in jail-for propaganda purposes or for more meanness, or to teach future operators of the vessel to be more careful. Recognizing this background, we object to the penalty that the master or the person in charge of the vessel be imprisoned. The penalty should be directed to the owner of the vessel, and the penalty should be limited to that of a fine only. In this period of conflict, why should the fisherman or skipper of the vessel be the victim of high policy disputes by various governments.

With respect to the mandatory fish cargo forfeiture penalty, we believe that this provision should be deleted, and replaced with the permissive feature contained in the original S. 1988. The apparent justification for this provision is the belief that claims against the United States would be minimized. We fail to see how any claim can be raised by a foreign fisherman against the United States; we know of no law that permits such a foreigner to sue the United States on such a claim.

We believe that forfeiture of the vessel and forfeiture of the fish cargo should be a matter for the discretion of the court. We recall to this committee's attention the plain fact that under the Fishermen's Protective Act of the United States, a vessel owner could not recover for his seized and forfeited vessel or seized and forfeited fish cargo. If you are going to get tough under S. 1988, then do something about protecting the U.S. fishermen who are carrying the burden of this conutry's policy on the freedom of the seas.

There is an additional fact this committee should recognize, and this relates to the U.S. Coast Guard's responsibility to the U.S. fishing industry. It is a fact that the U.S. Coast Guard is under no legal duty to prevent a seizure of a U.S. fishing vessel on the high seas. The authority for this statement is based upon a letter sent to the American Tunaboat Association by A. C. Richmond, viceadmiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant, dated September 15, 1956. A copy of this letter is attached to this statement.

The above reasons support our concern for the harsh approach taken by S. 1988 with respect to penalties. Admittedly, other countries have laws that have tougher sanctions. The passage of S. 1988 with or without tough penalties,

will not change these laws. But, perhaps, the more restrained approach taken by the United States will have an effect on the treatment of its citizens by other countries. We believe it incorrect for the United States to imitate the harsh approach taken by other countries, and we also believe it incorrect for the United States to initiate a policy that invites retaliation. The sanctions we suggest will deter the foolhardy. The imposition of a fine and the possibility of a forfeiture is sufficient evidence of our country's intent to protect its territorial seas.

U.S. COAST GUARD,

September 15, 1956.

Mr. W. M. CHAPMAN,
Director of Research,

American Tunaboat Association,

San Diego, Calif.

DEAR MR. CHAPMAN: The Secretary of the Treasury has referred to me your letter of August 20, 1956, setting forth your summation of the facts in connection with the misunderstanding which has arisen over the maintenance of additional patrols by the Coast Guard in the southern part of the Gulf of Mexico, and asked me to reply thereto, particularly with respect to the part referring to alleged equivocating statements on my part. This I am very happy to do as I am sure you are as desirous as I am to have the whole story a matter of record. Generally, I find your analysis not only quite complete, but quite accurate. There are a few inaccuracies which I would like to point out to you by going through your letter page by page. Before doing so, I would, however, like to review the matter of patrolling fishing banks in the Gulf of Mexico from the Coast Guard's point of view.

The Coast Guard's statutory responsibility to the fishing industry in general is predicated on 14 U.S.C., section 2, which states that the Coast Guard “* * shall develop, maintain and operate * * * rescue facilities for the promotion of safety on and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States ***." 14 U.S.C., section 88, under the general heading of "saving life and property" sets forth this responsibility in more detail. The Coast Guard has for years, under this or earlier authority, rendered within the limits of its facilities all possible aid to fishermen of the United States, whether their activities be on the Grand Banks, along the Pacific coast, in Alaska, or in the Gulf of Mexico. I am sure that the number of west coast tuna fishermen who over the years have received Coast Guard assistance will attest to this fact. About 1950 or 1951 the problem of assisting shrimp fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico became suddenly aggravated, not only by the large number of fishermen who began operations on the Campeche Banks, but the distance of these fishing grounds from what had previously been the normal sphere of operations. The Coast Guard, recognizing the growing problem, began to redeploy vessels within the limits of its capabilities along the gulf coast so that a continuous patrol could be made on the banks without unduly neglecting search and rescue responsibilities along our own coasts. This was accomplished and a surface patrol, augmented from time to time by air patrol, has been maintained almost continuously ever since, and it is our intention to continue this service to the fishermen.

You may be interested to know that in the fall of 1952, recognizing the growing importance of the gulf shrimp fishing activities, the Subcommittee on Treasury-Post Office Departments Appropriations made a cruise over the Campeche Banks to study the situation. This committee was headed by Congressman J. Vaughan Gary, and I mention it so that you will recognize that in the recent discussion he was fully cognizant of the many conflicting factors involved in the gulf situation through personal observation. I also mention the Coast Guard participation in the gulf activity to point out that the statement on page 3 of your letter, that "it has been only during the last year that the Coast Guard and the Department of the Navy have come awake," is not factual.

In the above I have stressed that the Coast Guard activity in the lower Gulf of Mexico has been entirely in the interests of search and rescue assistance to our shrimping fleet. I do this purposely because much of the confusion in the instant case arose from a misconception as to the duty and responsibility of the Coast Guard should a Mexican vessel interfere with a fishing vessel of the United States in the proximity of a Coast Guard vessel. I am in entire sympathy with your view of freedom of the seas, and I am conversant with the many problems that have beset not only the shrimp fishermen but your own tuna fishermen be30-021-648