REPORT ON CLAIMS FILED BY TUNA VESSEL OWNERS UNDER THE FISHERMEN'S PROTECTIVE ACT, AS AMENDED

Note: Average number of days for recovery of claim from date of seizure to date of payment: 431.
Source: ATA, May 19, 1971.

Mr. DINGELL. Our next witness is Mr. O. William Moody, administrator of AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department and also representing the Seafarers International Union of North America. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

STATEMENT OF 0. WILLIAM MOODY, ADMINISTRATOR, AFL-CIO MARITIME TRADES DEPARTMENT, AND ALSO REPRESENTING THE SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA

Mr. MOODY. Mr. Chairman, as you said, I am here representing the Maritime Trades Department, AFL-CIO and the Seafarers International Union. We believe that the purpose of this legislation, of course, is quite clear, and while it might not be entirely simple to implement, we share Mr. Felando's view that this could be accomplished. And we support the bill.

What we are concerned about, of course, is the continuing seizure of American tuna vessels by Ecuador in an effort to enforce its unilateral, and we think, wholly unsupported claim of territorial rights over waters 200 miles from its coast.

As I am sure the committee is aware from January 1 of this year up to the end of March, filings for seizures of American fishing vessels amounted to about $13/10 million, nearly twice the amount paid in all countries for such disputes in the preceding 10 years.

The reason for the increase is that among the 10 Latin American nations that claim a 200-mile offshore sovereignty, and they are virtually alone among the nations of the world in so doing, only Ecudor has in the past attempted to enforce it. There has been one 1971 seizure by Perù. I think it is interesting to note that this week Brazil became a member of the 200-mile club and this would pose an even greater threat to our substantial shrimp fishing fleet which operates off the coast of that nation.

We think that it is outrageous that from our point of view the fact that Ecuador offers a bounty of 60 to 70 percent of its fines to the vessels making the capture, that this, as we see it, amounts almost to piracy. It creates a condition that is substantially similar to what existed during the days of the Spanish Main.

And we think it is a paradoxical situation wherein the United States buys $70 million worth of goods a year from Ecuador, and although Ecuador last year imported about $125 million worth of goods from the United States, a good deal of these imports were financed by various kinds of U.S. aid money, a great deal of which went into capital equipment to assist that country in its industrialization.

In addition to that, we contributed about $2 million in military aid, including two patrol boats, and I think we can assume that our own fishing boats are being seized by U.S.-built gunboats, which again, from our point of view, is ridiculous.

We realize, however, that this is not the place to discuss what we think should be done to put an end to what we consider piracy. We think that H.R. 7117 will go a long way toward relieving the hardship, and the very severe hardship, that is being imposed upon the vessels and the crews of the vessels engaged in tuna fishing.

Our concern primarily, of course, is with the fact that the tuna fishermen who not only lose time fishing when seized; the long delays which are imposed on them in reimbursement of these fines create serious problems in payment of crews and other matters.

Mr. Chairman, we hope that the committee and Congress will approve this legislation with the greatest possible dispatch. It is surely

the least that can be done to ease part of the burden imposed upon law-abiding American fishermen.

But we do want to conclude our full endorsement of this clear and simple proposal by repeating that it is not in any way whatsoever a remedy for the evil that makes it necessary. The answer to piracy demands more than repaying the victims. In the case of the tuna fleet, as we have said before, the remedies are already within the existing powers of the U.S. Government whose failure to use them is in our opinion, shameful.

As the members of this committee have good reason to know, the Fishermen's Protective Act authorizes the Secretary of State to deduct the amount of these extortions of fines from the foreign aid we give to the offending nations.

Moreover, again as a result of your initiative, the Military Sales Act provides a cancellation of sales to any country that seizes U.S. vessels on the high seas. And we would also like to know whatever happened to the old tradition of supplying naval escorts for vessels that sail in waters infested with pirates. We think with the answers to these three questions, if they were satisfactorily answered, our Government could put an end to these seizures.

So even if this bill goes to swift passage, and we hope that it does, we want to reaffirm our insistence that freedom of the seas is as important to the United States today as it was in the days of John Paul Jones, and must be safeguarded with the same determination and force.

Mr. Chairman, we thank you very much for this opportunity to present our views to the committee.

Mr. DINGELL. The committee is grateful to you for your very helpful testimony. I do not think I need to reassure you that we intend to do everything we can to get this bill reported favorably in the House, and get it enacted in appropriate form and see to it that it is fully and properly carried out.

I am very pleased to know that you join us in that, and we look forward to working with you.

Mr. MOODY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Kyros.

Mr. KYROS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to comment Mr. Moody and the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department and the Seafarers International Union who are here before us in support of this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Everett.

Mr. EVERETT. Just one comment, Mr. Chairman. I notice that Mr. Moody mentioned in his statement that Brazil just recently extended their jurisdiction to 200 miles. I would like of offer for the record a newsclipping that appeared in the news media which says,

A State Department spokesman said the Administration has advised U.S. fishing boat owners that they do not have to buy licenses which Braizil now claims are required to operate within its 200-mile territorial sea zone.

I wish the person who passed this on would identify the paper and the date.

VOICE. Washington Post, this morning.

Mr. DINGELL. I should be very interested to see with what vigor the State Department will react with the procedures taken.

Mr. MOODY. Mr. Chairman, if the previous track record is an indication, it will not be with very much vigor.

(The clipping follows:)

[From the Washington Post, June 3, 1971]

FISHING DISPUTE

A State Department spokesman said the administration has advised U.S. fishing boat owners that they do not have to buy licenses which Brazil now claims are required to operate within its 200-mile territorial sea zone.

Brazil Tuesday sent naval ships to enforce the 200-mile limits, unilaterally proclaimed more than a year ago.

The State Department said the U.S. recognizes only a 12-mile limit and views the 200-mile limit as contrary to existing international law.

Mr. EVERETT. On page 3 you say, "It may well be a fact that our tuna fleet is being harassed by U.S.-built gunboats."

We have information that indicates that there is question about it. They are using former naval vessels on loan to the country, particularly Ecuador, with which to seize these fishing boats.

I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman.

(Mr. Moody's prepared statement follows:)

TESTIMONY OF O. WILLIAM MOODY, ADMINISTRATOR, AFL-CIO MARITIME TRADES DEPARTMENT AND ALSO REPRESENTING THE SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA AFL-CIO

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is O. William Moody. I am the administrator of the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department, a constitutional arm of the AFL-CIO comprising 42 national and international unions with a total membership of 71⁄2 million workers.

In addition, I am also here as a representative of my own union, the Seafarers International Union, AFL-CIO. Through its affiliate, the United Cannery and Industrial Workers of the Pacific the Seafarers International Union represents the fishermen who work the tuna boats. It is these fishermen who have been harassed, shot at and who have had their livelihood threatened by the irresponsible seizures of our fishing boats in what should be international waters.

I thank you for this opportunity to appear on behalf of both these organizations in support of HR-7117 and its identical companions, which your committee is now considering.

As the committee is well aware, the purpose of this legislation is clear and while its implementation might not be simple, we share Mr. Felando's views that it could be accomplished. Therefore I shall require very little of your time to express our views on it.

In essence the bill establishes a revolving fund, called the Fishermen's Protective Fund, from which the Secretary of the Treasury would promptly reimburse shopowners for fines improperly assessed by foreign countries.

What this is all about, of course, is the continuing seizure of American tuna vessels by Ecuador in an effort to enforce its unilateral-and wholly insupportable claim to territorial rights over water 200 miles from its coast.

From January 1 to the end of March this year, those fines amounted to 1.3 million dollars-nearly twice the total amount paid in fines to all countries in such disputes for the preceding decade.

The reason for the increase is that among the ten Latin-American nations that claim a 200-mile offshore sovereignty-and they are virtually alone among the nations of the world in so doing-only Ecuador has, in the past, attempted to enforce it. (There has been one 1971 seizure by Peru, out of 27). Brazil become the 10th member of the "200 mile club" only two days ago. Brazil announced on June 1 that it was extending its sovereignty to 200 miles and sent its naval units to begin patroling its "new" territorial waters. So now we have a threat to our shrimp boats which may be even more severe than the tuna boat harassment. Ecuador has instilled new diligence into this attempt by offering a bounty of 60 or 70 percent of the fine to the vessel making a capture. Obviously this has created a privateer system reminiscent of the days of the Spanish Main.

Such tactics would be outrageous no matter what country engaged in them. Is is especially ironical, however, to find Ecuador as the offender. The United States bought $70 million worth of goods from Ecuador last year, amounting to 38 percent of that country's exports. And while it is true that Ecuador imported $125 million worth of U.S. products, 46 percent of all its imports, there was a reason. We provided Ecuador with $26.6 million in gifts and loans. This money financed a substantial part of Ecuador's imports, mostly in the form of capital equipment to speed up its industrialization. And in addition, we contributed another $2 million, and two patrol boats, in military aid. It may well be a fact that our tuna fleet is being harassed by U.S.-built gunboats.

I realize, Mr. Chairman, that this is not the occasion to present our proposals for putting an end to what, in our view, is no better than piracy. HR-7117 makes no attempt to deal with the pirates. Instead, it offers a needed measure of assistance to their victims.

Reimbursement of U.S. shipowners for charges they are forced to pay for the release of vessels and crews illegally seized by foreign countries was first provided in the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1954. But payments have been extremely slow in coming. This means that the tuna fishermen, who lose at least a day's fishing when seized, must also carry for a matter of months the costs of a fine of $50,000, which is about the average.

Establishment of the Fishermen's Protective Fund, we are told, would cut reimbursement time to less than a month. Payments would be made immediately upon certification of the fine by the Secretary of State. The government would retain a lien on the vessel in the amount of the reimbursement for a period of 90 days after it is made, to guard against the possibility of an erroneous payment.

Not affected, unfortunately, is reimbursement for actual losses, other than fines, suffered by the owner and crew because of an illegal seizure. These losses are covered in Section 7 of the 1954 Act, added by the 1967-68 amendments. In a few cases the losses have been severe. On balance, however, they are less of a burden than the cost of carrying the fines, and they are not, of course, subject to such quick and positive calculation. Therefore it was probably wise for the authors of HR-7117 not to include them.

We hope that this committee and the Congress approve this legislation with the greatest possible dispatch; it is surely the least that can be done quickly to ease a part of the burden imposed upon law-abiding American fishermen.

But we do want to conclude our full endorsement of this clear and simple proposal by repeating that it is not, in any way whatsoever, a remedy for the evil that makes it necessary.

The answer to piracy demands more than repaying the victims. In the case of the tuna fleet, as we have said before and will say again and again, the remedies are already well within the existing powers of the United States government, whose failure to use them is, in our opinion, shameful.

As the members of this committee have good reason to know, the Fishermen's Protective Act authorizes the Secretary of State to deduct the amount of these extortionate fines from the foreign aid we give to the offending nation.

Moreover again as a result of your initiative the Military Sales Act provides for the cancellation of sales to any country that seizes U.S. vessels on the high seas.

And what ever happened to the old tradition of supplying naval escorts for vessel that sail in waters infested with pirates?

So even as this bill moves to swift passage, as we hope it does, we want to reaffirm our insistence that freedom of the seas is as important to the United States today as it was in the days of John Paul Jones, and must be safeguarded with the same determination and force.

Mr. DINGELL. Do you have anything to add?

Mr. MOODY. No, sir. Thank you very much.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair does note that Mr. Orbank from the Department of Treasury is on hand to answer questions. We hope that you will wait just a minute or two and we will be looking forward to hearing your comments.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)