STATEMENT OF AUGUST FELANDO, AMERICAN TUNABOAT

ASSOCIATION

Mr. FELANDO. I am August Felando. I am appearing before this subcommittee on behalf of the American Tunaboat Association. I am the general manager of this nonprofit fishery cooperative association, incorporated under the laws of the State of California, with its principal office of business in San Diego, Calif.

The American Tunaboat Association has been in existence since 1923. The membership is comprised exclusively of tuna-fishing vessel owners. Annually our members catch and unload over 60 percent of all tropical tunas landed in the United States by vessels operating from the United States. Some of our members operate from Puerto Rico.

There are 132 U.S. tuna clippers, that is, vessels that have a carrying capacity of 100 short tons of frozen tuna, or more. The total trip carrying capacity of this fleet is about 60,000 tons. There are 12 additional vessels under various stages of construction in the United States.

For purposes of insertion into the record. I would appreciate inclusion of the tables and charts that are part of my statement, and referred to herein.

Subject to our suggestions for minor changes in language, ATA strongly supports and urges passage of H.R. 7117.

H.R. 7117 proposes to amend the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 (22 U.S.C. 1971-77, 82 Stat. 729), as follows:

(1) By imposing an additional duty on the Secretary of State to take action to be immediately notified of the charges paid by vessel owner to the seizing country for release of the vessel and crew;

(2) By creating a lien on the vessel seized to the extent the vessel owner is reimbursed under the act by the Secretary of the Treasury; (3) By requiring the Secretary of State to immediately notify the seizing country of the reimbursements and payments made by the United States under the act;

(4) By directing the Secretary of State, after a passage of 120 days from the date of notice, to transfer funds appropriated by Congress and programed under the Foreign Assistance Act for the seizing country to a fund account administered by the Secretary of the Treasury;

(5) By creating a revolving fund for use by the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse certified claims, initially capitalized at $3

million:

(6) By allowing certified claims since December 31, 1970, to be reimbursed retroactively after enactment into law from such newly created fishermen's protective fund.

I would like to discuss now background for supporting need.

In our opinion, a number of factors, including a desire to seek equity and justice plus an application of common sense, require Congress to enact into law a bill that imposes sanctions against those countries that deny the United States of America the freedoms of the high seas, and at the same time enjoy the extensive freedoms of the marketplace of the United States and the substantial benefits that are made available to them under the Foreign Assistance Act.

In general, the 200-mile territorial sea doctrine asserted and enforced by military forces of certain Latin American countries challenges the sovereign interests of the United States of America, and to that challenge Congress must respond. A refusal to provide effective protection to American fishing vessels operating on the high seas within the 200-mi e claim would seriously impair rights of the Government of the United States. This is because the freedoms of the high seas belong only to sovereign countries, and, therefore, to the United States of America. The fact is that the extent to which U.S. citizens can exercise their freedom to fish the high seas is subject to the action. taken by the U.S. Government. If an American fisherman has his freedom to fish on the high seas interfered with or denied, his only recourse is to seek relief from the U.S. Government. Only a sovereign state can defend its rights as declared by the Geneva Convention on the High Seas and international law against another sovereign state. It is for this reason that it is in the public interest for this subcommittee and the 92d Congress to enact legislation that will be designed to protect the claim of sovereignty that the United States has on the high seas.

Congress must further consider the impact of the failure to protect its citizens on the high seas, with respect to international relations beyond those that exist in the Western Hemisphere, with respect to defense and international air and sea commerce, and, finally, with respect to this Nation's plans and desires to resolve the Law of the Sea during the 1973 Geneva Conference.

We do not believe it the primary duty of the American Tunaboat Association to present before this subcommittee the reasons why the position of the United States in this dispute are in accordance with international law and with the practice of the great majority of nations, and why the United States does not recognize the claims of Ecuador and other 200-mile countries. We hope that this subcommittee makes a request of appropriate Government officials, particularly with those connected with the Department of Defense, so that this subcommittee can determine the reasons why the Unied States objects to the 200-mile doctrine. Some of the reasons were expressed in an article entitled, "United States Oceans Policy," Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, vol. 2, No. 2, page 263, January 1971, author Leigh S. Ratiner, and I quote him:

The United States has long opposed extensions of territorial sea limits beyond 3 miles because such extensions would overlap 116 international straits which, under a 3-mile rule, contain high seas. Nations which depend on their merchant marine and navies for economic and national security *** can be strangled by having access to oceans limited or delayed when passing through international straits. Submerged passage of submarines, overflight of aircraft, and freedom from restriction generally would disappear.

To the extent they would continue to exist, these rights would depend on the good graces of the coastal state or states bordering on the strait in question. Such a result would be unacceptable to any country with global interests, a global foreign policy, a large merchant marine and a large navy and air force. It is principally for this reason that the United States has opposed territorial sea extensions beyond 3 miles. Unilateral extensions of jurisdiction are not likely to be restricted in such a way as to comport with what the United States regards as vital national security interests. Even if the United States were willing to see its rights as a nation on the high seas compartmentalized, and even if the United States were willing to treat these rights differently, according higher priority to the rights of its warships than those, say, of its distant-water fishing

fleets, it is difficult to see how the United States could prevent interference with its fishing fleet from maturing into interference with its warships when unilateral assertions of jurisdiction alone determine what is lawful.

As we know, the sea covers 70.8 percent of the world's surface or about 140 million square miles. The earth's land surface covers a little more than 56 million square miles. Should everyone of the 108 coastal States claim a 200-mile territorial sea, then over 50 million square miles of the high seas would be nationalized and lost to the world community. These are the facts that support the concern expressed by our Government leaders about this new wave of economic nationalism in the world's oceans.

We in the tuna industry are also concerned about the 200-mile doctrine's impact on the tuna fishery. We are concerned that the 200-mile doctrine, if applied generally by the coastal nations, would effectively prevent actions to economically manage and harvest the tuna resources under internationally controlled conservation regimes that are presently in existence in the Eastern Pacific and applied by the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission and in the Atlantic Ocean as supervised by the International Commission for the Conservation of the Atlantic Tunas. As established by conclusive scientific evidence, the tunas are a highly migratory, international ocean fishery, a resource of which no one nation can claim ownership or exclusive control. Should each of the 108 coastal countries have the authority to each determine the conservation rules affecting an international fishery like the tunas, then we believe that such fisheries would be seriously destroyed economically and most probably depleted.

It is for the above reasons why it is in the public interest that the 92d Congress enact legislation of the type proposed by H.R. 7117.

IMPACT OF 200-MILE ENFORCEMENT ON U.S. TUNA CLIPPERS

Table I provides the data on seizures of U.S.-flag tuna clippers during the period January 1, 1961, through December 31, 1970. During this 10-year period, there have been 92 seizures, with total costs at about $399,184.12, including the payment of $757,021.90 for fines.

Table I also covers the 1971 seizures as of this date. This listing indicates 27 seizures (26 by Ecuador, one by Peru), and that the payment of fines and other direct charges came to $1,334,209. Payments under section 7 for other related charges connected with these seizures are expected to be approximately $108,000.

Since January 1, 1961, Ecuador has seized 73 vessels and Peru, 36 vessels.

Table II indicates that under the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967, as amended, the sum of $975,965.80 was paid by the Secretary of Treasury to vessel owners for reimbursement of fines paid to countries who wrongfully seized U.S.-flag vessels on the high seas as recognized by the United States. This covers the period 1955 through December 31, 1970.

With respect to section 7 of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967, as amended, we are advised that the sum of about $80,000 has been paid to vessel owners under the industry-Government insurance program established by such section and made effective February 1969.

LIMITATIONS AND HARDSHIPS OF EXISTING LAW

Table III, a two-page table, indicates that under the provisions of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967, as amended a vessel owner, on the average, must wait 431 days to obtain reimbursement of the fines and other direct charges he paid to the seizing country to obtain the release of his crew and vessel. On the average, from the date of seizure to the date of certification by Secretary of State, it takes about 250 days; from the date of certification to the date of payment, another 180 days. During this entire period of time, the vessel owner sustains the loss of the use of his money, and, as is true in most if not all instances, particularly more recently, he bears an interest cost of 9 percent.

In 1971, the American Tunaboat Association assisted 14 vessel owners in the processing of their claims under section 3 of the act. The essential facts regarding such claims are as follows:

Under existing law, the Department of Treasury must obtain an appropriation from Congress before the $766,699 can be paid to the owners. The customary procedure is to make such claims part of the claims and judgments section of proposed supplemental appropriation requests by the President of the United States. Generally, there are two supplemental appropriation requests made during a calendar year: One in April and another in November. Within the past few weeks, the first supplemental appropriation bill was passed by Congress, H.R. 8190. What happened to the above claims in connection. with H.R. 8190 is another reason for the adoption of the amendment proposed by H.R. 7117 and related bills. The Senate Appropriation Committee reported passage of H.R. 8190 on May 13, 1971, 1 day after the latest certification of the above listing (quo vadis-May 12). In fact, seven of the above claims have been included in the House document incorporated by reference in the claims and judgment section of H.R. 8190. We are informed that because of a clerical error there resulted a failure to properly inform the Senate Appropriation Committee of the amounts certified for six of the above listed claims; therefore seven of the 13 certified claims will be paid out of the funds available from the supplemental appropriation bill. Thus, six of the

vessel owners involving claims of $387,190 will have to wait for the next supplemental appropriation bill. This means waiting until the fall of 1971, and payment probably in January 1972. One owner is faced with high interest charges on $155,340; another group of owners involving two vessels has to wait for $114,150. Meanwhile, they are still paying interest.

There is another serious problem that H.R. 7117 will assist to correct by its establishment of a revolving fund. Take the situations of the Apollo and the Caribbean. The Apollo was seized on January 18, 1971, and March 3; the Caribbean was seized January 23 and on March 27.

On the first seizure the owners of the Apollo paid $86,650 fines and direct charges only; on the second, $155,340; the Caribbean paid $11,200 on the first seizure and $74,160 on the second seizure.

On the basis of existing law and in view of present experience in processing claims, it would be almost impossible for any vessel owner to recover reimbursement on both of such claims within a calender year. Necessarily, the present law almost forces our vessel owners to be intimidated by a country that has a policy of seizing vessels as often as possible, and in increasing or doubling the amount of the fines on the second seizure.

Most, if not all, private vessel owners just cannot come up with the financial resources to pay the second fine within a couple of months after paying the first fine and then wait a year or so for complete reimbursement. Thus, some vessel owners cannot continue to assert the policy of the United States regarding the freedom of the high seas without more help from their government. Such help would be available under H.R. 7117.

The tremendous burdens and, obviously, unfair hardships created by the present procedure established by the existing law justifies the changes proposed by H.R. 7117.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

There are two problem areas that are not covered by H.R. 7117 or by the existing law.

1. The first concerns the fact that the standard insurance policy form now available to fishing vessel owners excludes liability coverage for any claim arising from a crewmember who was injured in connection with a vessel involved in a seizure incident. And this is true even though many vessel owners pay an annual premium of $22,000 for such limited P. & I. coverage, along with $1,000 deductible per claim.

In this connection we bring to your attention the language contained in S. 1242. This bill proposes substantial changes in section 7 of the existing act for purposes of expanding the provisions of the guarantee agreement to include injuries to the crews sustained during seizures, as well as "attempted" seizures.

The master and navigator of the tuna clipper Mayflower were in jured by gunshots from a Peruvian warship, but the Mayflower was never seized. William Peck, engineer of the Artic Maid, sustained permanent injury when shot by Ecuadoreans, but was denied legal recovery for his damages.