some bargaining strength because he is the party principally concerned with delivering the fish to market at a price which will assure consumption of the pack. The purpose of S. 1135 is to permit fish price negotiation, without coercion, by all interest parties, and the above provision is essential to permit this result. Without this provision, S. 1135 would be very objectionable.

C. "*** or take such other action with reference to such ex-vessel sales or factors affecting such ex-vessel sales, as an association may lawfully take, whether or not such fish or other aquatic products are sold through the organization and whether the organization acts as a selling agent or only as a bargaining agent." [Emphasis supplied.]

The provision "as an association may lawfully take" specifies the standard which will be applicable to a union functioning as a marketing association and emphasizes that although a union may do that which is permitted to an association, it does not have the greater privileges and immunities which it would otherwise have when involved in a bona fide labor dispute. In order to avoid the destructive conflict which is described in paragraph III of this statement, it is most important that the Congressional Record reflect a legislative interpretation and purpose of placing labor unions on an equivalent basis to cooperative and other types of organizations when functioning as a marketing association.

D. "Provided, That nothing in this Act or in any State or local law shall limit the rights of employee fishermen given by the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, the Clayton Act, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and other acts, including the rights of employee fishermen whose compensation is determined by the proceeds of the catch, to bargain collectively, or take other collective action regarding the ex-vessel price per pound or per piece of fish or other aquatic products to be used as a basis for computing their compensation:"

It is important to observe that even by its own terms, this phrase does not purport to give any additional right to labor unions, but presumably has been inserted to assure that a union is still entitled to conduct itself as a labor union when functioning in that capacity in relation to employer-employee relationships. The phrase appears to recognize the two standards which would be applicable to a labor union in the event of passage of S. 1135, one standard when the union was functioning as a marketing association and the other when it is functioning as a labor union, for purposes of being subject to the antitrust and Federal trade legislation. If the proponents of this bill contend that any greater or wider meaning is involved in this phrase, then it should be eliminated as granting an unwarranted preference to labor union associations as earlier set forth in this statement of position.

E. "And provided further, That the making of any such agreement or agreements between such an organization or organizations and one or more buyers or one or more associations of buyers concerning the terms, conditions, and prices of the ex-vessel sales of such fish or other aquatic products shall not be held to be in violation of any of the antitrust or trade laws of the United States, and any such agreement or agreements shall be deemed to be lawful."

This provision is identical to a comparable provision applicable to agricultural marketing orders under 7 U.S.C.A. sec. 608b and should be included for the same reasons. It means simply that an agreement between a fish marketing association and fish buyers is not per se illegal. This phrase does not attempt to exempt either marketing associations or fish buyers from the antitrust or trade laws of the United States but it does provide that the mere execution of a price agreement, which might otherwise violate such laws, is permissible and contemplated under the statute.

CONCLUSION

As previously stated, it is apparent that unless the legislative history and committee reports relating to S. 1135 fully discuss the problems and set forth the meanings and purposes of the various provisions of this act, its enactment will only serve to aggravate rather than alleviate the uncertainty which presently exists.

In this statement, the Association of Pacific Fisheries has attempted to outline its understanding of the present law applicable to fish marketing associations and the results which will occur with enactment of S. 1135. If the purpose, interpretation, or meaning of the bill differs from the understanding of the association as expressed in this statement, then the association is strongly opposed to its passage because the resulting uncertainty, strife, and litigation would add one more dangerously destructive element to an industry already seriously plagued with problems of supply, cost, and foreign interference.

20-926-63-2

Senator BARTLETT. The committee welcomes the presence of the Senator from California, Mr. Engle, who has just come in the room who, as we all know, is greatly interested in all matters having to do with the fishery in his State. He won't be able to remain with us. throughout the hearing because of other commitments. We are glad to have him here, however briefly. Do you have any comments to make at this time, Senator Engle?

Senator ENGLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my appreciation to you for that statement and to say that no one has given more vigorous or constant attention to the problems of the fishing industry than you have. I'm sorry that the executive meeting of another committee will require me to leave shortly, but I did want to appear to express my interest in the viewpoint of the witnesses appearing today and particularly to welcome to this hearing Mr. John Hawk and Mr. Lester Balinger, who are both here from California and who will testify. I want to say to them although I may not be able to stay during the testimony, I expect to read their statements as well as that of others and to give close attention to this legislative proposal.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BARTLETT. I know that is your case and I know you are interested in this and other fishery bills and we rely on your counsel and guidance when we consider the legislation after the hearings have been concluded.

Senator ENGLE. May I say, Mr. Chairman, if you will yield to me just a moment, that I notice now Mr. Issel, national director of the United Industrial Workers of North America, Pacific District, has just come in and Mr. Calise secretary and business agent of the Seine & Line Fishermen's Union, so we have four Californians here, indicating the interest of our State in the proposal before this committee. I'm glad to welcome you all.

Senator BARTLETT. If you have any doubt, Senator Engle, about the interest of Alaskans, I refer you to the printed hearings of last year. Senator ENGLE. I have no doubt at all."

Senator BARTLETT. The first witness is Mr. George Johansen, Secretary-treasurer of Alaska Fishermen's Union.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE JOHANSEN, SECRETARY-TREASURER, ALASKA FISHERMEN'S UNION, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Engle, it is always a pleasure and I might say a privilege to testify before this committee because we have found this committee to be exceedingly friendly to fishery interests and the fishing industry.

We have over the many years come to this committee with our problems and I believe we have found the committee on our side most of the time when we had something to present for the good of this fishing industry.

I'm glad you said that we shouldn't take too long a time on this hearing because I have submitted a brief for the record, which I am not going to read at this time, but I will comment on this brief. Senator BARTLETT. Highlight it.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Yes.

There seems to be some misconception on the part of some fishermen. as to what this legislation really means. We originally introduced, that is, the Seafarer's International Union of North America, originally introduced Senate bill 1265, which was an amendment to the TaftHartley Act. This was a bill, of course, that we would very much have appreciated. However, the bill did not meet with much favor and later on, Senator Magnuson and the today's chairman, Senator Bartlett, introduced Senate bill 3093, which was an amendment to the Marketing Act of 1934 and the present bill, S. 1135, of course, is along the lines of S. 3093. So the bill is an amendment to the Marketing Act and is not an amendment to the Taft-Hartley Act and, as such, it gives unions, if enacted, a right to bargain for fish prices for fishermen under the Marketing Act.

Secondly, there has been some concern that this legislation, if enacted, might put some of the marketing associations out of business. I can't see that because what we are seeking here is not to destroy a marketing association, we are seeking to get under the same act as they are operating under in order to provide an additional instrument for fishermen in their bargaining processes.

We don't know if the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission is going to come in in opposition to this bill. I have no knowledge of what they will do. I don't suppose that they have as yet submitted any reports or given any testimony to this committee? Senator BARTLETT. That is correct, Mr. Johansen. The plan is that after these hearings in California following this one, to which reference has been made, there will be a final hearing in Washington to hear departmental witnesses and any others who might care to testify at this time.

Mr. JOHANSEN. It would seem to us that if there was opposition by these departments, that it would be on the basis that this legislation would create a monopoly which, in turn, would enhance the prices to an unreasonable degree to the consumers.

We can see nothing in this bill that would create a monopoly. For example, I cannot see, and maybe I am wrong, where this bill would allow a union any more than it does a marketing association to dictate to a fish buyer or a cannery or to any source that they might have to deal with that they have to buy exclusively from them. This is not the fact under this bill. In other words, it seems to me that a fish buyer or processor can buy his fish from anybody he wants to buy it from, the same as he has done up to this time.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the fishermen over the past several years have fought pretty much of a losing battle. We have had all kinds of restraints. First, we have had the antitrust laws placed on us which have prohibited us from bargaining for fish prices for the product. Secondly, we have also had to put up with some pretty severe regulations pertaining to conservation which, of course, was necessary, but nevertheless, made it pretty difficult for a fisherman to come out financially.

I'm talking now particularly about the so-called fishermen that cannot under present laws be represented by the union. Many times these people had to go out and fish only 1 or 2 days a week and certainly, that didn't make for a good condition for these fishermen to work under. So on the one hand, you are restrained by the Govern

ment to properly bargain for your prices-properly probably isn't the right word in this case-but you are restrained from bargaining through a union for your fish prices.

No. 2, you are restrained by the same Government from utilizing your gear to the fullest extent. These are handicaps that have been pretty hard on the fishermen. In addition to these handicaps, we have had to face a national policy which has not given due consideration to the economic interests of the U.S. fishermen. As a matter of fact, over half of all the fish we eat in this country originates abroad. We have gradually come to a point where we find it very difficult to compete on our own markets with these foreign fishery products that are coming in here in ever increasing volumes.

I believe that we have enough to contend with without having these restrictions that are placed on an industry that is already very much in a straitjacket as it is.

I think it is significant that if we look over the past several years, we will find that employment in the U.S. fishing industry has greatly dropped and it is still dropping. We find that our leadership in the fishing industry is dropping. We went down from our former commanding position to a point where we are now only fifth in the world production and I venture to say that unless the Government will change this policy to a point where it is economically possible for a fisherman in this country to exist, we are going to be even further down the ladder.

We hope that through this committee in particular, and through our friends in Congress and through those unions that deal in the seafaring fields, we will be able to change some of these conditions and make them better for the future.

I am not going to make a long speech, so in conclusion, I would like to say that in my opinion, one of the things that has been particularly detrimental to the fisherman is that back in 1954, the Federal TradeCommission came in and took an action against all unions and all companies operating in Alaska. Since that time, union membership has been reduced by more than 50 percent, considerably more I would say, and instead of union memberships, we have found a number of small marketing associations that of necessity had to come in to being to perform part of their bargaining for these fishermen. These marketing associations have neither had the resources nor perhaps the training to appear before the Congress and plead the cause of fishermen.

I would say that because of the dwindling of the membership in the fishing union and because this same drop of membership has caused their finances to drop, there hasn't been either a union or marketing association in a good financial position to come in and represent the fishermen in the Nation's Capital and plead the cause for the fisheries as they should. This, I think, has been detrimental to the fisheries as a whole.

We are certainly keenly aware of the chairman's effort in the fishing field. We appreciate the Senator from California and we know of his interest in the fishery field.

Senator BARTLETT. We now have with us, Mr. Johansen, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Prouty, who, although he comes from a State not on an ocean, has also evidenced during his membership of this committee a very lively interest in this subject.

Mr. JOHANSEN. We certainly appreciate the Senator's interest there and we hope that after reading the testimony of these hearings, that a majority of the Senators will become convicted that something needs to be done.

Senator PROUTY. Mr. Chairman, if I can interrupt Mr. Johansen, I am very sorry that I couldn't be here earlier as I had another committee meeting. I have one at 10:30, at which I understand some votes are going to be taken, so I wish to apologize to the other witnesses and Mr. Johansen for leaving at this time. I will certainly read their testimony very closely.

Mr. JOHANSEN. In any event, Mr. Chairman, I am going to cut my testimony short here. I know there are others who would like to talk on this subject and inasmuch as I have previously testified and previously submitted a brief to this committee, I will terminate my testimony at this point unless you have any questions to ask. (The full statement follows:)

STATEMENT BY GEORGE JOHANSEN, SECRETARY-TREASURER, ALASKA FISHERMEN'S UNION, SEATTLE, WASH., RE S. 1135

We wish to supplement our previous testimony on S. 3093, which was introduced in the last session of Congress, and which deals with the same subject contained in S. 1135; namely, collective bargaining for fishermen.

What we particularly would like to stress is that we are here seeking permissive legislation which will permit a fisherman to negotiate through an agency of his choice, be it a marketing association or a union. It is not the intention of fishery unions to force anyone into a particular type of procedure. The objective of S. 1135 is to give fishermen additional choices of bargaining procedures suited to the particular needs which may exist in the fishery in which they participate. Nor are we seekng to destroy marketing associations. Through S. 1135, we are trying to be included under the Marketing Act of 1934, so that we, as unions, may be afforded an opportunity to bargain for fishermen.

Marketing associations will no doubt continue to function in the future in the same manner as they have in the past. We offer no objection to this, nor do we see anything in S. 1135 which would prohibit or change such practice.

Before action was taken by the Federal Trade Commission in 1954, we had marketing associations and unions, and both seemed to be working very successfully within their respective scopes of operations. We see no reason why there would be an upheaval in that practice if this bill is enacted into law. What we seek to do-bargain for fishermen-is not actually illegal. The law, in one form or another, recognizes that each person, be he an employee or an independent fisherman, has a right to bargain for the pay for his services. However, the method we must use as a practical matter to accomplish this purpose is now illegal.

In previous testimony, we have stressed that the raw price of the fishery product is not the controlling factor as to what the product will cost the consumer. Many other factors contribute to the price of the finished product. One of the best illustrations is what happened in 1962. The fish packers paid considerably more for pink salmon than had been paid in previous years, but, nevertheless, the price on the market for canned pinks now averages approximately $5 a case less than prices obtained in previous years. This, again, clearly illustrates our previous arguments that the marketing conditions, plus quantity and quality, are the controlling factors of what the consumers will pay for the finished product. Thus, it would seem that by the enactment of S. 1135, there would not be any difference in marketing prices because of union bargaining.

We do not know whether the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission will offer any objection to this legislation. If objections are offered, it seems to us that they must be on the basis that S. 1135 will create monopolies which, in turn, will dictate more or less fixed prices to the consumer. We think it has been clearly illustrated through testimony on S. 3093 and supplemented in this brief, that in our particular industry, namely, the salmon fisheries, marketing conditions have been and are the controlling factor in relation to prices on the finished product.