Several times in the past the Tariff Commission has found in favor of our domestic fishing industry. As you know, the State Department has urged previous administrations, in the national interest, to take no action on these findings by the Commission. The Department of the Interior was to discuss with representatives of the industry means of alleviating the continuing decline of the domestic fisheries. To date, while funds expended on research by the Department have increased substantially, our New England industry continues its more-than-gradual decline. I hope that your committee may give careful consideration to this particular amendment, and, in view of the strong feelings on the part of Massachusetts fishermen, that it may be eliminated from the bill. Sincerely, LEVERETT SALTON STALL, The CHAIRMAN. The next witness here is Mr. Ackert. U.S. Senator. STATEMENT OF JEFF KIBRE, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION Mr. KIBRE. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jeff Kibre. I am the Washington representative of the International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union. In this instance I appear on behalf of our fisheries division. Rather than reading my short, prepared statement, I would like to use my time to comment on the proposed legislation with reference to the problem of the tuna fleet. I would like to ask that the full statement go into the record. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF JEFF KIBRE, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION My name is Jeff Kibre. I am Washington representative of the International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union and, in this instance, I appear in behalf of our fisheries division. I welcome the opportunity to appear here in support of S. 1988 and similar bills. The members of the ILWU Fishery Division, engaged in the offshore fisheries of southern California, the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, have had firsthand experience with the problems that this legislation is designed to meet. They solidly favor a positive policy to protect our great coastal resources and will applaud speedy favorable action on S. 1988. In our judgment, the proposed legislation makes no substantive change in our fishery policy. It merely fulfills a longstanding need to strengthen American laws prohibiting foreign encroachment upon our territorial sea and the natural resources of our Continental Shelf; and establishes effective penalties and procedures so as to enforce these prohibitions. In essence, S. 1988 authorizes the National Government to play its proper role as the guarantor of our coastal fishery resources. At the present time, protection of coastal resources within U.S. territorial waters rests primarily in the hands of the States. These authorities, by a variety of management and policing methods, seek to prevent nationals of other countries from fishing within the recognized territorial waters of the United States. But the waters off the coast of Alaska and other coastal areas are being subjected to increasing pressure from foreign fishing interests. It is timely, therefore, that the authority of the Federal Government implement the limited powers available to and exercised presently by the States. In addition to the question of deterring encroachment upon our territorial sea, we are particularly interested in the protection of seabed resources of the Continental Shelf which range beyond the territorial limit. I refer, for example, to king crab and dungeness crab. These important resources, especially vital to the economy of Alaska, are widen open to encroachment. Indeed, Japanese and Russian trawlers are steadily expanding their harvesting of such resources in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. We believe that Alaska king crab and dungeness crab qualify as natural resources of the Continental Shelf. Should this be the case, the basis for their protection clearly lies within the language of the 1958 Geneva Continental Shelf Convention, now on the verge of becoming a recognized part of international fishery law. This convention recognizes that a coastal State has sovereign rights in the exploitation of certain natural resources indigenous to the Continental Shelf. While it has not been finally settled which resources belong to the United States under the Continental Shelf convention, commonsense would seem to call for action now to secure our rights to such resources that may be determined to fall within the convention. Mere policy statements without adequate policing power cannot do the job. Nor, as we understand the problem, can the States act effectively in this particular area. In urging favorable action on S. 1988, I want to recall a striking point in a major policy speech by Senator Ben Smith somewhat over a year and a half ago. Senator Smith, a man knowledgeable in the fisheries, noted that the United States has shown a remarkable knack for promoting fisheries of foreign nations while it hesitated to aid or protect its own. Fishermen around the country are desperately hoping that this anomalous situation will sooner or later be brought to an end. The inevitable alternative is the virtual extinction of our once proud fishing industry. Speedy approval of S. 1988 can be another step in demonstrating that Congress is concerned with the rehabilitation and protection of our fisheries. We urge that the bill be reported favorably without undue delay. Mr. KIBRE. Last Thursday, Mr. Felando, the general manager of the Tunaboat Association of San Diego, testified with reference to the problem of the tuna fleet. He pointed out that the tuna fleet operates predominantly on the high seas off the shores of Central and Latin American countries. This poses a particular problem which we feel must be taken into account with reference to the form that this legislation takes. It is to this issue that I want to devote myself. I might add that our union represents a considerable number of crewmembers manning the tunaboat vessels. In addition, during the 1940's, I had firsthand experience with the problems of the tuna fleet when I was an active official of the Fishmen's Union on the west coast. The problem, it seems to us, is quite important. The plain facts are that the tuna fleet, which, by the way, is one of the top moneymakers of the industry, operates off the shores of a number of Latin American countries, Costa Rica, Ecuador, et cetera. Now, we have to deal with a practical problem growing out of the policy that these countries lay down with reference to the territorial sea. When we speak of the territorial sea, we must recognize that it is not a settled zone of 3 miles around the world. We are speaking of a variable zone. Some countries see it differently than we do in terms of their own national interest. We at the present time exercise sovereignty out to 3 miles. This is an expression of our national interest. But the fact remains that other countries see it differently. As Mrs. Green pointed out a moment ago, the whole concept of the breadth of the territorial sea is changing at the present time. Today we talk in terms of 3 miles for our country. It may be that 6 months from now we may be asserting 12 miles, at least for fishery purposes. It has already been brought out very clearly in this hearing that a number of other countries have seen fit to extend their territorial sea out to 12 miles, or even farther with reference to control over fisheries. What does this bring us to? The tuna fleet does not argue that we should open the door of the menhaden fishery or the fisheries of Maine to an influx of foreign vessels. We are not saying that. We are saying that the form this bill takes is extremely important. If this bill creates the impression that our Government is following a restrictive policy, then it is bound to lead to repercussions in Latin America. This has been our experience over the years. To highlight that experience, I only need to refer to the Truman proclamation of 1945. That proclamation laid down the policy that the United States, for purposes of conservation, could define fishery zones and exercise control over those fishery zones for the purpose of fishery management. This policy was laid down in 1945. Now, although that policy was subsequently implemented, not on the basis of unilateral claims or unilateral zones by the United States, but rather in terms of regional pacts with other countries involved; notwithstanding the fact that this was the way in which the United States implemented the Truman proclamation, Latin American countries used the Truman proclamation as the excuse and as the basis for asserting claims over fishery resources extending as far as 200 miles seaward. They took advantage for their own purposes of the Truman proclamation. This has led to an enormous variety of difficulties concerning the tuna fleet in the last 15 years. I am sure this committee is well aware of some of the horrendous experiences that our fleet has experienced. The point I am making here is that the Truman proclamation, when it was enunciated, was a sound policy and has given rise to an extension of sound policies on the part of our Government, but that policy was used for other purposes by Latin American countries. What we are concerned about here is that if we lay down a restrictive policy respecting the territorial sea, that this in turn will lead to additional repercussions in Latin American waters. Let us clarify the problem raised by any legislation dealing with the territorial sea. It is true that at the present time we are only claiming 3 miles. At the same time, many of us in the fishing industry hope that it will be extended to 12 miles. But when we legislate now for the territorial sea, Latin American countries are not going to think in terms of the territorial sea as we see it. They are not going to think in terms of 3 or 6 miles. They are going to be thinking in terms of the territorial sea as they see it. Thus, an exclusionary policy affecting our narrow territorial zone of 3 miles is likely to lead to serious repercussions affecting the broader zones claimed by Latin-American countries. This is the thing which disturbs us. Now, we fully support the objective laid down in the Senate bill. This is found in my prepared statement. We fully support the objective of protecting our territorial waters against poaching, against invasion by any foreign fishermen. But we say this can be accomplished in such a way that it need not lead to repercussions in Latin America, nor need it lead to invasion of the waters of the State of Massachusetts or North Carolina by foreign fishermen. 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. |