The point we are getting at is that there should be in this bill some form of reciprocal arrangement, an arrangement which would protect the historic fishing rights of foreign nationals in the first place and protect the opportunity to arrive at future reciprocal arrangements with other countries.

I think if we enunciate a policy along that line, it will advance our overall fishery interests and avoid any feeling by South American countries that we are attempting to build a fence around our own waters. This is the point that we want to get across.

At the same time, we are not proposing that the licensing provision should be so wide open that it would automatically lead to an invasion of those fisheries which are presently being exploited to the limit of their capability.

We are saying that the licensing provision should be a limited one. It should take into account the matter of reciprocity and should protect the historic rights, let us say, of our friends in Canada, who are fishing off our shores, in the Pacific Northwest, and, as I understand it, in the North Atlantic coastal area. This is the basic point that we are urging.

Finally, let me also say that we are quite concerned over the penalty in the bill providing for jail sentences of up to 1 year. We are afraid such a penalty as that is likely to encourage Latin American countries to levy similar penalties upon our vessels when they may become involved in difficulties down there.

We think that the purposes of protection can be served by stiff fines, as the bill provides, or by the confiscation of the catches or the gear. We think penalties of that nature should be sufficient to protect our territorial waters.

I think this is the feeling that the tuna fleet and the tuna industry has at the present time. I think probably the same feeling extends to the shrimp fleet which operates off the shores of Mexico and other Latin American countries.

Let me close by making this additional point. Certainly we hope in the future that our fleets are going to range even further at sea than they are at the present time. We are only at the threshold of learning about the riches of the ocean and particularly the riches of the ocean bed. Now, we may find one of these days that it will be to our advantage to be in a position to harvest fishery resources within the 3-mile limit, or within the 6-mile limit, or within the 9-mile limit, off the shores of a foreign government. We also may find that it will be to our advantage to utilize or develop mineral resources within the Continental Shelf area of a foreign country.

I think, in line with that perspective, it is important that we set the kind of example in whatever legislation we enact, which is going to preserve the opportunity for our fishing fleets, to take advantage of the possibilities as they open up.

These, in substance, are the main points we are concerned about. The CHAIRMAN. I think your observations are well worthy of consideration.

Mr. LENNON. Do you know the countries in South America and Central America that permit either our tuna or shrimp fishermen or our menhaden fishermen to fish within their so-called 3-mile limit with a license?

Mr. KIBRE. I don't recall the particular countries but let me say this: Some years ago, when many of the tuna vessels were using the bait method of catching tuna, these vessels often had to go within the 3-mile limit to catch their bait. This was done through the issuance of a license or permit. Now most of the vessels are using the purse seine method and, of course, do not have to take bait. Most of the tuna taken is caught offshore at distances far greater than 3 miles.

Mr. LENNON. I am sure that as knowledgeable as you are and with your experience in this field that you could obtain and put in the record those Latin American countries that you indicated might retaliate if we were too restrictive in this bill, the names of those countries that permit fishing within their territorial waters, say 3 miles, by license.

Mr. KIBRE. I could have a memo prepared on this subject, going into the question of permits, distance from the shores, and so forth. (The information referred to follows:)

CONDITIONS AFFECTING U.S. TUNA VESSELS OPERATING OFF SOUTH AMERICAN

COUNTRIES

As is well known, U.S. fishing vessels harvest tuna in the coastal and high seas waters off the shores of a number of South American countries. The countries in question are indicated below. The various specie of tuna are taken from just offshore to as far out as 300 miles. On the average, according to reports of vessel owners, most catches are taken in waters from 6 to 30 miles offshore.

South American countries off whose shores tuna is fished have promulgated widely varying claims over the extent of the territorial sea. In addition, many of these countries claim an additional zone over which they exercise jurisdiction with respect to fishing. The claims of the various countries involved in tuna fishery operations are as follows:

Mexico: 9 miles for territorial sea.

Guatemala: 12 miles for territorial sea.

El Salvador: 200 miles for territorial sea.

Costa Rica: Claims territorial sea "in accordance with international law" without specifying a set distance and claims 200 miles for fishing. Panama: 12 miles for territorial sea.

Colombia: 6 miles for territorial sea, 12 miles for fishing.

Ecuador: 12 miles for territorial sea, 200 miles for fishing.

Peru: 200 miles for territorial sea.

Chile: 50 kilometers for territorial sea, 200 miles for fishing.

From the above, it is self-evident that U.S. tuna fishing vessels operate either in the territorial sea or in the fishery zone claimed by the various countries. These countries, however, have developed a system of licensing U.S. vessels. Varying charges for licenses made by the various countries are as follows: Mexico: Charges for licenses to San Pedro-based purse seiners are as follows: Vessels from 50 to 71 net tons, $21 per net ton. Vessels from 72 to 100 net tons, $19 per net ton. Vessels from 101 tons and over, $17 per net ton.

The average cost for Mexican fishing licenses is $19 per net ton. In San Diego the purse seiners pay $16 per net ton. This may be because they are all larger than those in San Pedro. The few baitboats left pay $12 per net ton. Vessels up to 105 net tons have a license that is good for 60 days. Vessels over 105 net tons have a license that is good for 90 days.

Colombia: Charges $12 per net ton. The license is good for 100 days. Ecuador: Since last year's executive agreement, charges $10 per net ton, which allows two voyages or a maximum of 150 days, whichever occurs first.

Peru: Charges $12 per net ton.

Chile: Charges $12 per net ton.

Mr. LENNON. I know a few days ago that a gentleman from the Department of the Interior, Mr. McKernan, I believe, discussed the possibility of writing into this bill, a substitute for that section which provides for the licensing, a reciprocal arrangement. I would like you to furnish the counsel of the committee language that you think would provide true reciprocity between this Nation and any other nation for fishing within our historical territorial waters of 3 miles, both in the category of research or sport or recreational and even commercial. I know you must have been impressed by what the gentleman said with respect to the coast of Massachusetts involving some four or five communities which apparently, even though they are political subdivisions of the State, historically, even today, have the right to veto what the fisheries commission or division, acting on behalf of the Governor, would do to give such a license.

Mr. KIBRE. I am very sympathetic to his problem. I am sure the legislation can be worked out in such a form

Mr. LENNON. He has indicated, so did Mr. Tupper, this is true of so many of the New England States. I do not know what Florida or Texas would say since they exercise the right out to the Continental Shelf different from any other two States in the Union, what they would say about it. It looks to me that if we are going to protect our commercial fishermen we are going to have to find some way of writing into this bill a reciprocal arrangement. Now, I think it has been in evidence here and in the record that less than 16 percent of our total catch is on the coastal waters of the South American Republics, as I recall it, both in the category of shrimp, menhaden, and tuna; is that right? One of the witnesses here yesterday testified that a little over 82 percent of our total catch of all categories was off our own shores, the gulf, Pacific or Atlantic, and a little less than 20 percent were taken by our fishermen off Mexico or some of the other Central or South American Republics.

Is that your recollection of the facts?

Mr. KIBRE. I think that is substantially correct.

Mr. LENNON. I think what the gentleman from Massachusetts was doing was indicating whether or not we should sacrifice our own shores to foreign fishermen just to protect less than 20 percent of our total catch.

Speaking for myself, I do not think it would be abused. I do not think in any instances a license should be issued, either commercial, research, or recreational, unless that country in turn reciprocated within the so-called territorial sea.

Mr. KIBRE. Exactly.

Mr. LENNON. I am interested in what you say about the territorial sea. Is it your thinking, representing the organization you do, that the executive and congressional responsibility would carry us to the point that we ought to attempt to extend to at least the 6- or perhaps the 12-mile limit, the so-called concept of territorial waters?

Mr. KIBRE. Yes, our thinking is that we should extend, at least for fishery purposes, the territorial sea out to 12 miles.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tollefson.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kibre, I was glad to hear you make the statement that so far as your organization is concerned and most all the tuna people, they do not want to take the position and are not taking the position that they want to open the doors so wide to fisheries within our 3-mile limit as to injure, say, the menhaden industry or the fisheries of the New England States. What you are mostly concerned about is some kind of language, reciprocity language, which will not form the basis for some retaliatory action on the part of particularly Latin American countries?

Mr. KIBRE. That is exactly true, Mr. Tollefson. I think the language can be drafted in such a form that it will be limited. For example, I think the reciprocity should extend only to a given species of fish rather than reciprocity in the general sense which would open the door, for example, to a possible invasion of fisheries that are presently overloaded.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. It has been one of our positions, especially with respect to the North Pacific Fisheries Treaty, that there should be full utilization of the fisheries and if full utilization is made, then no foreign national should be permitted to take that particular type of fish. Mr. KIBRE. Precisely, the theory of abstention which is embodied in the North Pacific Fisheries Treaty.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. We also have taken the position that we have some historic fishing rights and that point was discussed and argued, and so far as the Canadians at least were concerned, they recognized that we had some historic fishing rights off the shores of Canada, up in the Northwest area especially. So that, if we are going to recognize historic rights in some areas, we have to look at the other side of that coin, too, do we not?

Mr. KIBRE. I do not see how we can avoid it.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I think you have made an excellent statement, Mr. Kibre. You have pointed up, so far as I am concerned, the need for carefully drafting the language to go into this bill.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think your statement, too, has been most helpful.

Would your suggestion be that on page 2, where the licensing authority is given, that you simply put in a statement on reciprocity there, the license will be granted only in those instances where reciprocity is granted and in specific instances for specific species, and so forth?

Mr. KIBRE. Exactly. That is the idea I have in mind at the present time. In other words, the reciprocity should extend only to a given species of fish where there is mutuality of interest.

For example, in tuna, we have tuna coming under the Tropical Treaty which lies off the shores of southern California. Now, this means that nationals of the other governments which are party to the Tropical Tuna Convention, technically at least, are entitled to fish tuna off the southern coast of California. So, here is an area where there is a mutual interest with respect to a given species of fish. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ASHLEY (presiding). Mr. Goodling.

30-021-64--12

Mr. GOODLING. I was in the Yucatan Peninsula a few weeks ago. Storm warnings were up. That harbor was filled with shrimp boats, most of them U.S. shrimp boats. Do we have any reciprocal agreement with Mexico?

Mr. KIBRE. Yes, there is always the right, for example, in the event of a storm to take refuge in a port of a foreign country.

par

Mr. GOODLING. I mean so far as fishing rights are concerned. I believe I am correct when I say they unload their cargo at this ticular port because there are canning and processing facilities there. Mr. KIBRE. I am not sure of the present arrangement with respect to the shrimp fleet operating off the shores of Mexico. I do know there was a lot of difficulty over a period of years, a number of our boats were seized, a number of them were arrested, and taken into Mexican ports.

There has been, so far as I know, an arrangement worked out between the two Governments which provides for some reciprocal rights at the present time. I am not up on the exact details of that arrangement.

Mr. GOODLING. The person with whom I visited, one of the very few people who could speak English, did not seem to object to them being there. Apparently they are welcome there.

When you speak of reciprocal agreements with other countries, what countries do you have in mind?

Mr. KIBRE. For example, the tuna fishing area lies off the coast of southern California and extends into the waters off the Central and South American countries. There are approximately five or six countries, as I recall, which are involved, only three of whom, I think, are presently parties to the Tropical Tuna Convention. Ultimately, it is hoped that all of these countries will become parties to that convention so that there will then be a foundation for reciprocal rights to the nationals of all of these governments.

Mr. GOODLING. Let us go north now. In your prepared statement, here, you speak about the Alaskan king crab industry. This bill, as presently written, would not furnish much protection to that industry, would it?

Mr. KIBRE. It would not, not a great deal of protection. The effectuation, however, of the Continental Shelf Convention would lay the basis for protecting the king crab fishery. That would give us the basis for laying claim to those resources of the continental seabed which appertain to the United States.

Mr. GOODLING. We would have to include the Continental Shelf in this bill if we were to protect the king crab industry?

Mr. KIBRE. We would, but apparently there is the general consensus it should be left to the subject of an additional bill.

Mr. GOODLING. That is all.

Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Keith.

Mr. KEITH. Are you by chance an attorney?

Mr. KIBRE. No; I am not.

Mr. KEITH. I am not, either, but I sort of wonder

Mr. KIBRE. We can talk more freely then.

Mr. KEITH. It would seem to me that other nations with whom we have exchanged fishing rights, if we are in violation of their rights as Cuba was in violation of ours, that they could by executive action