EXHIBIT 5 U.S. IMPORTS OF TUNA COMMODITY, BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, JANUARY-JUNE 1962 Source: Compiled from information verified by customs examiners on import entries filed with customs by importers: U.S. Bureau of the Census, "U.S. Import Statistics," Report F.110. 0058400 Tunafish, yellowfin, bigeye, and bluefin tuna, whole, fresh or frozen, not cooked. 0058600 Tunafish, yellowfin, bigeye, and bluefin tuna, without heads and tails removed, fresh or frozen, not cooked. 0058700 Tunafish, yellowfin, bigeye, and bluefin tuna, without heads and tails 005880 Tunafish, yellowfin, bigeye, and bluefin tuna, filleted, fresh or frozen, not cooked. 0058900 Tunafish, yellowfin, bigeye, and bluefin tuna, other, fresh or frozen, not cooked. 0058950 Tunafish, skipjack, fresh or frozen, not cooked. 0078350 Tuna loins and disks, other than albacore. 0065700 Other tunafish than white meat tunafish in oil, canned. 0065100 Bonito and yellowtail in oil, valued over 9 cents per pound. 0067250 Canned tuna in brine. 0067800 Bonito in brine, in airtight containers. Factors used to convert to round weight: Gilled and gutted multiplied by 1.12. Dressed, headed and tailless multiplied by 1.25. Cooked loins and disks multiplied by 2.25. As to canned fish, total weight divided by 24 to establish number of total cases, then case and factor of 39 equals round weight. EXHIBIT 7 The California tuna fleet has produced 69.1 percent of the total skipjack and yellowfin tuna caught in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. The total of 115,729 tons does not include Japanese production. Other fleets have produced 30.9 percent of such total catch. [In tons of 2,000 pounds] From January to Aug. 18, 1962, total tropical tuna catch in eastern tropical Pacific, except Japanese production___. Total landed yellowfin Less landings in California___ 115, 729 60, 890 49, 449 Grand total yellowfin and skipjack caught by other fleets than Source: Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Fishery Products Rept. 35, 767 P-165, Mr. FELANDO. As this fishing production power develops in Latin America, vocal and powerful fishing interests in those countries place pressures on their governments to harass or interfere with U.S.-flag tuna vessels. In previous years, these pressures originated from other interests and for other motives. But, today, the picture has changed. The payment of tribute money for fishing licenses once balanced the national interest in the fishery resources in the claimed territorial waters of the country. Payment of money is no longer an effective way of avoiding seizure and harassment of our fishermen on the high seas off Latin America. A more practical and effective solution is required. Let me review the background of this problem. In Latin America most countries have laws that permit foreign vessels to fish off their coasts. The foreign vessels can fish if they pay a license or if they are employed by a fishing company organized in the country. The best example of this approach is Peru. As the subcommittee knows, Peru is now in third place in world fish production. Only Japan and Red China exceed its production. United States has fallen from second to fifth place. Peru permits American-flag vessels to operate for a Peruvian company even though this company is controlled by an American company. Peru also allows American-flag vessels to purchase fishing licenses. In years past, Peru received substantial income from purchases of fishing licenses by American tuna vessels. But the presence of fish determines the necessity for licenses, and as such there has been an irregular flow of license income. This irregular condition does not apply to fishing companies and canneries actually located in Ecuador and Peru. And so, as the de velopment of these canneries and fleets increased, the interest and necessity in license income decreased. In the past, the presence of our vessels off Latin America inspired claims of a violated national pride. Today, the presence of our vessels are objectionable because they are competitors to an existing and thriving fishing industry. Our domestic canners, the same people who buy our fish, are taking actions designed to increase the tuna production of their units stationed in Ecuador and Peru. (See exhibit 1, p. 49.) We cannot prevent competition from the fishing units located in Latin America. Nevertheless, we can ask our Government to take steps to insure that such competition acts fairly and with justice toward us. We merely ask that the American tuna fishermen be free of seizures and discriminatory acts designed to deny them the opportunity to stay on the high seas fishing grounds. We ask that the Government be permitted to take practical steps to give us that protection. We believe that if our Government is going to control our production, then it should also be obligated to see to it that we have free and open access to the grounds that provide such production. We have been aware of the actions our Government has taken to handle the Ecuadoran situation. (See exhibit 4, p. 53.) We are not satisfied with the results. In a speech on August 2, 1962, by Senator Gruening, pages 1441214413, Congressional Record, he noted the following facts: There is, in our country at present, a delegation from Ecuador seeking additional aid to bail out its shaky economic structure. While continuing to spend money to purchase more arms, in order to keep up with arms purchases by Peru, Ecuador comes to the United States to have us make its budget whole. When the President of Ecuador returned to his country, an Ecuadorian naval vessel seized the American-flag vessel White Star on or about August 3, 1962, and, as of today, the vessel is still under custody in Salinas, Ecuador. Based upon reports obtained from members of our association, the seizure incident occurred on the high seas. The Ecuadoran naval vessel had bypassed two or three other tuna vessels as it was proceeding from Salinas, Ecuador, toward Manta. For some unknown reason, the White Star was stopped by the patrol vessel and taken into Manta, Ecuador. The White Star had an Ecuadoran fishing license, but had not been fishing at the time of seizure. After the White Star seizure, at a location approximately 5 miles off the island of La Plata, the tuna fishing vessel Cabrillo was boarded by Ecuadorans. While this vessels was fishing, that is, in a "set," a small vessel approached. It contained armed soldiers. They came on board the Cabrillo. Based on information I have now received, the master was confronted by the purported military commandant from the island, and a ".45" pistol was pointed at the master of the Cabrillo and he was told that unless the master did something the vessel was going to be taken under custody into La Plata. So the master give him a case of whisky and 4 or 5 tons of tuna. After this was done, the vessel was permitted to continue fishing. 1 The subcommittee was advised by the State Department of the release, on Sept. 5, 1962, of the White Star. Last Friday, a vessel named Larry Roe or Lois Seaver was boarded at the Galapagos Islands. Its fishing activities were stopped by Ecuadoran officials. The papers regarding the vessel are still in the custody of the Ecuadorans. I now understand that the vessel was released for fishing. I am not sure, and haven't received any confirmed reports, but I believe there are Ecuadoran soldiers aboard this vessel with the understanding that the vessel was to proceed back to the Galapagos Islands after a passage of time. Thus, we are continuing to have additional incidents in Ecuador. We now know how and where Ecuador gets its gunboats. Senator Gruening explained in his speech as follows: Ecuador protested long and loud, in 1958, when it became apparent that the U.S. Congress was considering providing one of our excess destroyers to Peru. Finally, in 1959, despite the Pentagon's judgment that Ecuador did not need a destroyer to fulfill its role in hemisphere defense, and despite the State De partment's concern that the upkeep of the ship would strain Ecuador's hardpressed treasury, we bowed to political consideration, and furnished Ecuador the destroyer. So here we are, American-flag fishing vessels being seized by a former American military ship given to Ecuador for the express purpose of hemisphere defense by Congress. During the last war, 60 percent of our tuna fleet and in some cases, with crews aboard, were taken over by the Navy. It is a little of life's irony for our men to know that ex-U.S. Navy vessels are chasing them off the high seas. Mr. SELDEN. Was it an ex-American destroyer that seized this ship? Mr. FELANDO. The information that I have is that it was a destroyer formerly used by the U.S. Navy. As to whether this is the typethey also have an English corvette style vessel. Whether this vessel that seized the White Star was a destroyer or corvette, I don't have the information. Mr. SELDEN. You state here it was an American vessel? Mr. FELANDO. Yes. The reason I say that is this, that two other vessels I talked to one fellow who was aboard one vessel that was given the first light signal by the ship, and his description to me indicated it was a large-size vessel and it most likely was a destroyer. I can't say that Mr. SELDEN. Perhaps you should amend your statement. Mr. FELANDO. Since January 1961 tuna vessels have been seized by naval vessels of the Republic of Panama, El Salvador, Colombia, and now, Ecuador. Tuna vessels have been shot at by naval vessels of El Salvador and Colombia. Tuna vessels have been boarded by armed military personnel, and masters ordered off their vessels by naval vessels of Ecuador. I have affidavits from the masters of six vessels. I would like to introduce them in the record at this time. I would like to have these affidavits made a part of the record. Mr. SELDEN. Without objection, they will be included as part of the record. (The affidavits referred to are as follows:) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of San Diego, ss: I, Ernest Monteiro, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of San Diego, Calif., living at 350 San Elijo Street, ACademy 3-8010, being first duly sworn, says: That I am the managing owner and master of the MV Shamrock, official number 253-836. I have had this position of authority since 1948, the year the vessel was launched, and have been fishing for tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean for over 30 years. The MV Shamrock left San Diego for fishing grounds on January 4, 1961. We caught our first fish at Galapagos Islands, just off Culpepper Island. On February 7, 1961, while headed for Marchena Island, we were stopped by the Ecuadoran Coast Guard. It was requested to me to leave my vessel and. board the Ecuadoran ship, whereupon I showed my ship documents and licenses. This entire incident took about 1 hour, from the time signaled to stop, until continuing my vessel's course. On March 17, 1961, the vessel entered Balboa, Canal Zone, Panama, for the purpose of obtaining fuel. We had bait aboard at this time. We left Balboa at about 1810 hours the same day of entry. On March 19, 1961, we started looking and working for bait off the Colombian Coast, near Cape Marzo. On March 20, we obtained about 1,025 scoops of anchoveta off Cape Marzo, Colombia. On March 21, 1961, at about 0300 hours, the vessel was anchored in 17 fathoms of water for the purpose of doing emergency repair work on the main engine. The engineer had informed me a few days before of trouble with obtaining a proper pressure on the bearings because of something faulty with the lube pump. That morning, the engineer told me that we only had 3 pounds of lube oil pressure, and so I decided to anchor the vessel and get to work on this problem. Right after anchoring, we shot some flares when I saw a boat passing by, I believe a shrimp boat. I wanted to attract its attention so he could pass the word into Panama to my broker that we were coming in. The boat didn't stop. I went down to the engineroom with the engineer. We had discovered that a "key" to the gear on the lube pump was missing, and while searching the sump for this "key" two crewmembers came to the engineroom and signaled me to come up topside. The engineer stayed down below. When I got up to the main deck, starboard side, I saw a number of men in uniforms holding machineguns, rifles, and pistols toward me and the crewmembers. A man later identified to me as "Watson" asked, in English, who was the master. I stepped forward and answered his question. He then informed me that we were under arrest because we were in Panamanian waters. I told him that we were not in Panamanian waters. We then entered into a discussion about the location of the vessel. I told the navigator, Herman Lancaster, to give Watson the location of the vessel. Watson and Lancaster went to the pilothouse, and Lancaster put on the radar for purposes of locating the vessel. When we had dropped anchor that morning, I checked the location of the vessel and knew it to be as follows: Latitude 8° 39.41' N., longitude 78° 51.5' W. After Watson and Lancaster left for the pilothouse, I was taken from my ship to the cutter. When Watson returned, he told me that he was going to take us to Panama City, and leave only two men on board my ship. I told him that there should be no less than four men left aboard, two men for deck watches, two men for engineroom watches. He said no, just the cook and the engineer. I told Watson about the risks to the vessel by leaving the unexperienced cook and the engineer alone, that the vessel could be lost and the insurance company deny payment under the policy. He rejected my views. They did not allow the crew to properly dress. They shoved the men around with guns. When we got ashore, I was permitted to buy some clothing for my men. After I made these purchases, we were taken to a "jail"; a 4- by 12-foot room. Actually, it was only a men's restroom. We were in this room for about 2 hours. I made requests to see the American consul and contact the American Tunaboat Association constantly. They told me that as soon as they were finished with us they would contact the American consul and the ship's broker in Panama City. We were then moved to army barracks. These buildings were empty of furniture. |