Le me say that the first S. 2568 was introduced in September 1961. Then the administration introduced a revised S. 2568 on April 27, 1962. We took the position that we opposed that legislation. We opposed the legislation unless it was properly amended. Senator Bartlett requested that all segments of the industry and Government representatives sit down and see if they could come out with anything. I came back to Washington and tried to work out the problem. During the discussions we were quite concerned about this business of what was happening to us. Now we are more concerned. That is why we have reversed our position. Mr. SELDEN. Your position was in favor of this bill when you testified before the Senate? Mr. FELANDO. On June 18 we submitted a list of amendments which are substantially contained in that document. This was the result of an industry agreement with the support of Government representatives from the Department of the Interior and the Department of State. We stated at that time we were in support of that legislation. There was a question about the definition of the "United States." The definition we had supplied was objectionable to the State Department, and we worked out a modification of that language. I think the record will reveal a letter as of August 1 where we accepted those modifications. Mr. SELDEN. Was the amendment that you have now offered part of the list of amendments that you proposed? Mr. FELANDO. No. Mr. SELDEN. This is something new? Mr. FELANDO. That is right. We had talked in the letter of June 18-you know, we talked about this problem which was the concern of all industry segments. It was felt that we should not confuse this approach Mr. SELDEN. I might point this out to you, Mr. Felando. When this legislation was sent to this subcommittee and a hearing was requested, I was notified that all segments of the fishing industry were in favor of it. We brought it up with that understanding. To change this bill at this late date doesn't enhance the possibility of it being passed. Mr. FELANDO. It was with some difficulty that we took this position, Mr. Chairman, that we would have to insist on this type of amendment. If you notice, the State Department requested a change in the language because they felt that there was some interest in changing the definition of the "United States." They requested a change in the House side. It was only after a somewhat agonizing appraisal of what was happening to us that we just felt we had to tie in this protection to this bill. Mr. SELDEN. I should like at this time to insert in the record correspondence received from the International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union and the Cannery Workers & Fishermen's Union, expressing their views on S. 2568; and, in addition, letters from my colleagues, Congressman Hosmer and Congressman King, in connection with this legislation. (The letters referred to follow :) INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, Hon. ARMISTEAD I. SELDEN, Jr., Chairman, Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs, House Foreign Affairs Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE SELDEN: This communication is in regard to S. 2568, and answers your telegram of August 14. I am advised by ILWU Local 33 of San Pedro, which is vitally interested in the above-mentioned bill, that it supports and urges enactment of this legislation as amended and passed by the Senate. Our organization has long supported sound fishery conservation and management. Our principal concern with this legislation was to see that it contained adequate safeguards to protect the interests of U.S. tuna fishermen. This objective, we feel, has been substantially accomplished through the amendments perfected by the Senate Commerce Committee. In urging favorable action on S. 2568, as amended, ILWU Local 33 strongly urges that your attention be directed to that portion of the Commerce Committee report under the heading "Discrimination Against Americans." This item is found on page 4, Senate Report No. 1737. As the report points out, it is basic to the success of the program contemplated by S. 2568 that U.S. tuna vessels "have nondiscriminatory access" to the tuna fishing areas of the high seas off the coasts of Central and South America. Such a policy demands prompt action to remove the kind of harassment mentioned in the Senate report. We are aware that the problem is complex, and that the appropriate Government agencies are seeking a solution. At the same time, however, we hope that your subcommittee will give consideration to this matter by requesting reports on what progress has been accomplished. Likewise, we urge that, if a solution remains in the speculative stage, early consideration be given to an enabling statute which would arm the appropriate Government agencies with adequate authority to put an end to unreasonable discriminatory acts on the high seas which fall within the scope of the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Convention waters. Such a statute might properly utilize embargo machinery similar to the provisions of S. 2568. Unless U.S. vessels enjoy nondiscriminatory access to the high seas tuna stocks which are to be regulated under the authority granted by S. 2568, we fear for the long-range success of this needed management program. May we take this opportunity to commend the State Department and the Department of Interior for the constructive and cooperative attitude their representatives have displayed throughout the history of S. 2568. We also highly appreciate the courtesies you have extended our organization. Very truly yours, JEFF KIBRE, Washington Representative. CANNERY WORKERS & FISHERMEN'S UNION, Hon. ARMISTEAD I. SELDEN, Jr., DEAR CONGRESSMAN SELDEN: You no doubt have in your file my letter of August 3, 1962, addressed to the attention of the Honorable Thomas E. Morgan, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, wherein we take the position of being in favor of S. 2568 as amended. We were of the opinion then that all of our fears of harassment and piracy on the high seas that have been practiced by some of the Latin American countries against the American-flag vessels had been taken care of through negotiations by Government agencies with these various countries. We came to this conclusion after consultation with people of the State Department whose responsibility it is to handle affairs of this nature. However, since our hearings on this bill before the Senate Committee on Commerce, American-flag vessels have been harassed and seized on the high seas by the Ecuadoran Government. This then leaves us with the opinion that Senate bill 2568 should be amended for the purpose of protecting American-flag vessels and fishermen from these unlawful acts. Under Senate bill 2568 you will note that it calls for an 83,000-ton bag limit for yellowfin tuna in an area in the South Pacific as designated. When this bag limit is reached on yellowfin, the American tuna fishermen must then turn to the skipjack fishery. The principal skipjack fisheries lie within 40 miles of various Latin American countries. If other Latin American countries along with Ecuador establish the same type of legislation as Ecuador already has, this would make it absolutely impossible for the American fishermen to survive as such. Mr. August Felando, who is the general manager for the American Tunaboat Association in San Diego, is preparing such amendments that I have mentioned. The intent of such amendments would be to place an embargo on tuna and tunalike fishes from any country that prohibits American-flag vessels from fishing outside the lawful 3-mile limit. We think if Senate bill 2568 is to do what it is intended, namely, to conserve the fishery, that it must be done without discrimination. We therefore would strongly support such amendments and urge that the bill not be passed without safeguards along the lines I have mentioned. I am enclosing for your information a copy of the legislation recently passed by the Ecuadoran Government. I am sure that you and your committee will will be adamant through your deliberations that the American fishermen's rights on the high seas are protected. Sincerely, From: Embassy, Quito, Ecuador. LESTER BALINGER, Secretary-Treasurer. To: The Department of State, Washington. This is an informal translation, dated May 31, 1962, of decree No. 749, by Carlos Julio Arosemena Monroy, Constitutional President of the Republic of Ecuador, prohibiting purse seiners from fishing within 40 marine miles of the Ecuadoran coast between Cabo Pasado and Punta de Santa Elena. Considering: That, the Manabi Association of Boat Owners (AMAPE) has presented to the Ministry of Development a petition asking that tuna fishing in Ecuadoran waters be regulated in a manner so that it does not adversely affect the national fishing fleet; That, having sent a special commission of representatives of the Ministry of Development and the Ministry of Defense, it has been established that the activity of Ecuadoran tuna boats would be affected considerably by the system of fishing known as purse seiners; and, That, in conformity with article 13 of the maritime hunting and fishing law, the executive branch is authorized to prohibit, restrict, limit, or condition fishing activities, Decrees: Article 1. Fishing vessels are prohibited from fishing tuna by means of net (system known as purse seiner), in the section of the sea comprehended within the following limits: from the beacon of Cabo Pasado, an imaginary line, 40 marine miles to the west to the point 00°22'00'' south latitude and 81°10'00'' west longitude. From this point with a true route of 195° to another point situated in the sea at 02°12'00'' south latitude and 81°40'00'' west longitude, that is to say, to 40 miles west of Punta de Santa Elena; and from there, with a true route of 90°, until ending on land at Punta de Santa Elena. Article 2. Said zone is declared a national reserve, in which there will be permitted only fishing by hook and line subject to pertinent legal provisions. Under the present decree, foreign-flag fishing vessels will continue subject to the provisions of Executive Decree No. 991, of May 23, 1961, published in Official Registry No. 229, of June 2 of the same year. (NOTE. This decree prohibits foreign flag vessels from fishing for bait between Punta de Santa Elena and Cabo Pasado.) Article 3. The prohibition provided in article 1, modifies the fishing permits granted to purse seiners, limiting their operations to outside the reserve zone. Article 4. All foreign-flag tuna fishing vessels are obligated to present themselves to the captain of the Ecuadoran port closest to their route, in order to have their documents countersigned, on entering and leaving national territory. Article 5. Authorized Ecuadoran consuls, on granting the matricula and fishing permit, will receive a sworn statement from the captains of fishing vessels, that will be evidenced in writing at the bottom of such documents, that they understand the provisions of the present decree. Article 6. Any violation of the provisions of this decree will be punished in accordance with the sanctions provided in article 52 of the maritime law of hunting and fishing. Article 7. The Minister of Development, Foreign Affairs and Defense are given responsibility for enforcement of this decree. Signed in the National Palace at Quito on May 15, 1962. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., August 4, 1962. Re S. 2568. Hon. THOMAS E. MORGAN, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committeee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN MORGAN: It is my understanding that the above-captioned Senate-passed bill has been referred to the Inter-American Affairs Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the subcommittee has scheduled no action on this measure at the present time. This legislation would amend Public Law 764 of the 81st Congress, an act to give effect to the convention for the establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Mr. Charles R. Carry, executive director, California Fish Canners Association, Inc., Terminal Island, Calif., has written to me to express the urgency with which his industry views passage of this legislation in the current session of Congress, in order that the United States may live up to its commitments under the treaty. As I understand that Mr. Carry has also transmitted the views of the industry on this matter to Chairman Selden of the Inter-American Affairs Subcommittee, I will not go into further detail but will limit myself to the expression of my own interest in seeing S. 2568 brought to the floor of the House for action before the 87th Congress adjourns. Thank you for your courtesy. Sincerely yours, CRAIG HOSMER, Member of Congress. Hon. ARMISTEAD I. SELDEN, Jr., HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., August 14, 1962. Chairman, Inter-American Affairs Subcommittee, The Capitol, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In 1950, I was one of the authors of an act to give effect to the convention for the establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, which ultimately became Public Law 764, 81st Congress. The U.S. section of the IATTC has been functioning under that law ever since. At the time Public Law 764 passed, there was no need for regulatory provisions. At that time we simply wished to get the necessary scientific investigations started so that we would know whether, in fact, we were engaged in overfishing the tropical stocks of tunas. It was clearly then our intention of amending the legislation, when such action became necessary, to provide a means of regulation that would enable the member countries to conserve the stocks of tuna. Now, 12 years later, the scientific research staff has advised the Commission that the stocks of yellowfin are, in fact, being overfished, and that regulation is necessary. The Commission in turn has notified the U.S. Government of the need of regulation of U.S. fishermen, as it has also notified the other member governments-Costa Rica, Panama, and Ecuador. Before the U.S. Government can regulate U.S. fishermen, however, Public Law 764 must be amended to provide a technique for such regulation. In September 1961, the Secretary of State, by letter to the Speaker of the House and to the President of the Senate, proposed legislation that would provide the means for regulating the yellowfin fishery. I am assured that S. 2568, as amended and passed by the Senate, has the support of all elements of the southern California tuna industry, and it is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that your committee will find it possible to report the bill promptly. Thank you for your usual kind cooperation. Sincerely, CECIL R. KING, Member of Congress. Mr. SELDEN. Are there any further questions? There are representatives here of the State Department, the Department of the Interior. If you have any questions that you would like Mr. FASCELL. How about canners? Those are the people I want to question regarding this amendment. Mr. SELDEN. The canners submitted a letter saying they were fully in accord with the legislation. Mr. FASCELL. Where do they stand on this amendment? Mr. SELDEN. Are there any representatives of the Canners Association here? STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. STEELE, JR., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL CANNERS ASSOCIATION Mr. STEELE. I am with the National Canners Association and represent all of the canners. But as far as this amendment is concerned, we have not seen this amendment before this morning and I would hesitate to comment on it without further study. Mr. SELDEN. Here it is. It is very short. Mr. STEELE. I would have to go back to my canner members, and I will forward it to them as soon as the hearing is over. Mr. SELDEN. If this committee is going to take any action on this legislation, it will have to take it quickly. I would hope that you would submit a statement at an early date as to your views in connection with it. Mr. STEELE. Mr. Chairman, I will pass on your request to Mr. Charles Carry, who represents the tuna canners specifically, for comment on this." I think the subcommittee has received a communication from Mr. Carry. Mr. SELDEN. Not in connection with this amendment, however. Mr. STEELE. This is the first time we have seen the amendment. Mr. SELDEN. Would the subcommittee members like to hold the representatives of the executive branch here and go into executive session to discuss some of these matters? Mr. FASCELL. Yes. Mr. SELDEN. All right. The committee will recess momentarily to give the other witnesses time to gather up their material. We will now go into executive session briefly to discuss with the Department of State and the other affected branches of the Government their views on this particular amendment. (Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee proceeded to executive session on S. 2568.) |