STATEMENT OF BRUCE J. SCOTT, STATE REPRESENTATIVE, FORT MYERS, FLA.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, I am State Representative Bruce J. Scott, from the State of Florida. It is indeed a pleasure for me to appear before this honorable committee on such an important and vital issue as the protection of our territorial waters, the matter under consideration at this hearing. I have had a deep concern about our territorial waters for some time, as a member of the Florida Legislature and as a member of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission.

After considering the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, finding that the territorial waters of the State of Florida extends into the Gulf of Mexico 3 leagues, and finding that the United States Government had no law which would protect our territorial waters from encroachments by foreign fisheries, and discovering that under Florida law all that any country needed to do was to pay a small license fee to enable their fishermen to fish in our waters, I drafted a bill and passed it in the Florida Legislature in May 1963, prohibiting the licensing of any vessel owned in whole or in part by any alien power, subject or national thereof, or individual who subscribes to the doctrine of international communism, and making it unlawful for any unlicensed alien vessel to take by any means whatsoever, attempt to take or having so taken, to possess, any natural resource of Florida territorial waters. It is under this statute, chapter 370.21 of Florida Statutes, that the four Cuban fishing vessels were placed under arrest in Key West on February 2, with 38 Cuban nationals aboard. The vessels were the Cardenas 14 and Cardenas 19, and the Lambda 3 and Lambda 33two 75-foot vessels and two 40-some-foot vessels.

Gentlemen, it is my firm belief that those four boats were deliberately ordered to enter Florida's territorial waters for one and possibly two purposes:

First. As a clear provocation, to determine the reaction of our new President in a national crisis. In fact, one of the two Cubans who defected and were granted political asylum in the United States related that the crews of the four vessels were assembled on the docks in Havana and instructed to enter Florida waters, and to fish where they would be observed. They were told, he said, that they would be intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard of the U.S. Navy, and they were told how they were to react. Of course, all of you are aware of what occurred subsequent to the seizure of the boats: The angry protest by the Cuban delegate to the United Nations, the cutting off of the Cuban water supply at Guantanamo, and the moves to make the base independent of the Cuban water supply at a cost of some $10 million. The second possible purpose of their entering our waters, I believe, was espionage spying with sophisticated electronic equipment carried by the boats. A crew member on the Lambda 33, one Vincenta Mandez Ferrer, had with him a diary showing that the fisherman had been in and out of Florida waters for several months. As long back as August 1963, his diary recorded fishing in the area of Woman Key, a few miles west of Key West, within easy visual range of our submarine base, air station, and rocket installations at Key West.

Ferrer's diary recorded fishing in the same area in the period December 31, 1963, to January 3, 1964, with a return to the same area January 10-11, a return to Havana January 26, and an immediate return to the area of Dry Tortugas where the boats were arrested.

I believe these Cubans were using fishing as a cover for spying. However, Ferrer's diary gives no indication that the Cubans were doing other than fishing. Whatever their reason for being there, however, the citizens of the State of Florida believe that vessels of an unfriendly power should be barred from our territorial waters.

It was in that belief that I drafted the Florida law under which these four Cuban captains were found guilty and fined $500 apiece in the State court at Key West yesterday.

This honorable committee is aware that under Federal law there is no penalty for ships of a foreign power arrested fishing in our waters. This is an area of legal jurisdiction where, with no applicable Federal law, I proposed this State measure and had it enacted.

There is no conflict in this area of law between the State and Federal jurisdiction. The State of Florida is willing to exercise responsibility in this area but we realize that the cost of patrol activities to enforce the State law would be prohibitive on the State for, gentlemen, we have over 7,000 miles of coastline, half of it within 150 miles of Cuba.

I must say at this point that there has been extremely fine cooperation between the U.S. Coast Guard and Navy and the Florida Conservation Department. Gentlemen, even though the State of Florida is willing to relinquish this jurisdiction to the Federal Government if appropriate Federal legislation is enacted, which would be backed up by the authority of the U.S. Coast Guard and Navy. But Florida. wants to get the assurance that our fisheries, our territorial waters, will be protected, especially from encroachments by the Communist power.

Since this area of law is in fact a matter of great importance to all coastal States, we in Florida feel that a uniform Federal law on the subject would be advisable. I urge you to adopt such a law, as you have before you now, and include in it even more punitive penalties than are included in the Florida statute. I thank you again for the opportunity of being heard on this vital matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tollefson.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I want to commend you on your good statement. I do not know that it is necessary for anybody from Florida to come up here. Our colleague, Mr. Rogers, does such an estimable job and has been doing one, nevertheless we are glad to have your statement. Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, sir.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I just say that I certainly want to commend Representative Scott for his interest in this subject and the action he took in the State legislature. He has been most helpful in this, and also I appreciate the comments of my colleague.

Mr. DOWNING. May I add it is an extremely fine statement, Mr. Scott.

I am interested in what you base your opinion on that these people were there for espionage purposes.

Did they have equipment on the boat which would indicate that? Mr. Scorr. These boats were apparently built in Cuba or at least I know the Lamba 33 was, in Cuba under Russian architects in 1963. They are more finely equipped than the majority of any of the U.S. fishing fleet. I went aboard the vessels and the electronic equipment and gear, radar, et cetera, that was on the boats, certainly led me to believe that they were.

These boats were fishing with handlines and also trough lines. Being so close to Key West, around Woman's Key, it certainly gives me the feeling that these men could come ashore with a boat that had Florida numbers on it undetected. I have no idea whether the State Department, the Department of Interior, or persons involved were aware that these boats were that close to Key West or not.

Mr. DOWNING. Did they have a small boat on it with Florida numbers?

Mr. SCOTT. No, sir. There was no ammunition-there were no arms found. I believe there were a couple of cartridges, but there were no arms at all found.

Mr. DOWNING. Did it have radio?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir, very fine radio equipment.

Mr. DOWNING. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask: There was some reference as to whether or not there was a storm at the time these Cuban fishing boats were apprehended. Was there any wind or storm that would have caused them to seek shelter?

Mr. SCOTT. No, sir, the U.S. weather department informs us that there was very good weather at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. We have one more witness

Mr. MORTON. Mr. Scott, did they catch any fish?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir, they did.

Mr. MORTON. Enough to make it a commercially profitable trip?

Mr. SCOTT. They had, at that time, I believe some 5,000 pounds of fish.

Mr. KEITH. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEITH. Have you any idea how many more of these boats there are in Cuba?

Mr. SCOTT. No, sir, I do not.

Mr. KEITH. What is their range? Do you have any idea as to that? Mr. SCOTT. Their range is, I did have that information, I do not now. One thing I found quite interesting about the ships, the diesel engines were made in Communist Germany

Mr. KEITH. Communist Germany?

Mr. SCOTT. The refrigeration system was made in Russia, and the spotlights were made in Syracuse. [Laughter.]

Mr. PELLY. More foreign aid?

Mr. Scort. If I might make one brief observation, Mr. Chairman. We also found out that these people had aboard the boat a person well-schooled in communism and at designed, or preset times, these men all assembled and were given instructions on communism, even while in the Florida territorial waters.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Felando?

Mr. FELANDO, Mr. Chairman, would it be possible for me to testify tomorrow morning if you are going to have a hearing?

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir, this will be the last call for the time being. And we do not have very much time.

I understand that you had a short statement to make. I am trying to help you.

STATEMENT OF AUGUST FELANDO, GENERAL MANAGER OF THE AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION

Mr. FELANDO. I am August Felando, general manager of the American Tunaboat Association, organized under the State laws of California. The membership is comprised exclusively of tuna vessel owners and we account for a little better than 60 percent of the total catch of tropical tunas landed in the 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 American Tunaboat Association opposes any language in S. 1988 that permits foreign-flag vessels to land their catch in a U.S. port in contravention of the Nicolson Act, title 46, United States Code, section 251, and finally to raise our points of view regarding the penalties provisions of section 2 (a) and (b) of S. 1988.

First, as to the policy issues.

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 "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, when it will be in the national interest and, two, 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 U.S. citizens 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 they should be exclusive. We take 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.

The statement made by Mr. McKernan covers one basic reason why we would oppose this policy of exclusiveness with reference to our relationship as to licenses that we have been carrying on for about 50 years now, in Central and South America.

An additional reason why the United States should not adopt the blanket policy of excluding all foreign vessels from engaging in fishing, particularly 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 countries of Mexico, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Panama. We have had this program now for approximately 15 years. I refer to the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, as amended, and the actual existence of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. If we deny foreign fishing vessels which are operated by citizens of countries that agree to implement the conservation recommendations of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission the right to fish within the U.S. territorial waters it would be conceivable that these countries would charge us with bad faith. The basic recommendation of the International Tropical Tuna Commission has a relationship to an overall quota catch for tuna caught in the eastern tropical Pacific, an area that encompasses from California down to Chile and as far out as a couple of thousand miles from the coastline. They would charge us with bad faith in that 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 area to the exclusion of the United States and other foreign fishermen. That would destroy the maintenance, inspection, and operation of conservation measures adopted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. The reason for the quota recommendation is based on the fact that the tunas are migratory and international in scope; the populations in the eastern tropical Pacific extend and move throughout the Southern Hemisphere and up around the coast of California.

Certainly in any case the atmosphere of suspicion alone would create problems of implementing the provisions of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

We believe 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 those 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. The Secretary of Interior must certify that such should be

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to let you put the balance of your statement in the record. Are there any pertinent things about the bill that you would like to call to the attention of the committee?

Mr. FELANDO. With reference to the recommendations of Interior I think they are correct as to the issue of authorizing the license to fish. With respect to the issue of landing catch we feel that the integrity of the Nicholson Act should be retained and there should not be any exception to that act, with reference to the landing of catch as to commercial vessels and we also question the advisability of research or training vessels. The reason we say that is apparently in Japan they are having trouble between the commercial fishermen and the research vessels. The research vessels seem to be landing quite a bit of catch to the detriment of the commerical fishermen.