The CHAIRMAN. Who are you talking about then?

Mr. FELANDO. I was talking about other nations that under this law would violate the territorial waters of the United States. If the is a series of violations, and we have a series of penalties imposed, financial penalties, I think then this is proof that after the third or fourth that someone is disregarding the assertion of the rights of the United States in this area and that this would put into play the economic sanctions.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it could be a justification for economic sanctions?

Mr. FELANDO. That would be the justification, a series of intrusions. But everyone in the testimony that I have heard looks at these penalties and they don't want to comment on them. The only comment was the Coast Guard and he felt they should be tougher.

Well, I feel that the question really is are these adequate deterrents? And I say imprisonment of the fishermen, mandatory forfeiture of the fishing cargo or its vessel, I don't think that is the proper approach.

I think the approach should be economic sanctions. You are going to get policymaking people in that other country thinking about the problem then.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, economic sanctions are sometimes based on something other than fishing violations. They are usually based on some sound economic ground by the country involved. It isn't just fishing violations. For instance, you wouldn't have a restriction on fresh and frozen tuna to be put into effect only when somebody violated some rule.

Mr. FELANDO. No, but

The CHAIRMAN. If it is justification to put it into effect at all, it should be in effect permanently as an economic measure, regardless of who fishes here or there. I think it should be in effect anyway.

Mr. FELANDO. I am in agreement with you. Senator, I feel that when you imprison people, you take that fisherman off that boat, and I have lived with the human side of this thing.

The CHAIRMAN. What you are talking about is a simple matter for this committee, how to enforce this act, and you are saying there should not be any jail sentences involved in either this country or other countries.

Mr. FELANDO. I think there should be some international recognition that fishermen have some rights when their vessels are seized. For us to rubberstamp what other countries have done, is not proper. The CHAIRMAN. We haven't done that.

Mr. FELANDO. Well, it seems to me the provisions here are almost identical with others I have come across.

Senator BARTLETT. No, they are not. Let me point out why. They are much less harsh than those imposed right now and for a long time in the past by Canada, which provides for a fine up to $25,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, forfeiture, and all of the rest of it. And I haven't heard any great outcry that Canada is acting in an unreasonable manner.

Mr. FELANDO. Well, Canada generally, in my opinion, has a pretty good court setup; they have some real strong democratic institutions. I am not talking about the United States; but I am talking about other countries other than Canada and the United States, as to their

method of enforcing laws of this type. And we have had experiences in the past. I won't mention the country, when that country decided it might be a good idea to get into the tuna business, and one of the best ways was to seize a vessel, and confiscate it, and take it over. Senator BARTLETT. Maybe we can modernize our fleet that way. Mr. FELANDO. Well, I guess that would be on the mind of some people. But we have had a history of this, this is an actual fact, and it was only through a lot of hard work that we were able really to stop that.

Now, this was a reaction of other countries, that we did not like, and we feel if the United States moves in this direction, we are afraid that maybe we are going to get a little tougher treatment as we proceed, because on the basis, well why should you complain, your country does that.

The CHAIRMAN. What? You mean jail sentences?

Mr. FELANDO. Yes.

Senator BARTLETT. How could they be tougher on you than they

are now?

Mr. FELANDO. Well, at least we haven't had an imprisonment of our crew, the fellows have been able to stay on board. We had some individuals that were fined personally.

Senator BARTLETT. But in these countries to which you allude, are there laws that would make possible jail sentences?

Mr. FELANDO. Yes; and they also could confiscate the cargo, take over the vessel.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, this provision in section 2(a), has an "or" in it, a fine or imprisonment. I simply can't see, I don't know if you can, Mr. Chairman, why we shouldn't do that which the others do to you.

Mr. FELANDO. I think we ought to take the lead and recognize the fact that fishermen have some rights on the high seas, and they should be; they should have some protection.

Senator BARTLETT. We are not talking about high seas. talking about territorial waters.

We are

Mr. FELANDO. All right. The fact is however we run into the problem of claims of other nations that do not agree with our concept of territorial seas. And we will be running into problems.

The CHAIRMAN. We have no concept set, as yet, on our territorial waters.

Mr. FELANDO. Well, I don't know whether I can agree with you completely on that.

The CHAIRMAN. It is open. We are going to discuss that later. Mr. FELANDO. I understand there are a lot of legal decisions with respect to the 3-mile territorial sea.

The CHAIRMAN. Probably that is so.

Mr. FELANDO. I don't have any specific proposals with respect to that.

The CHAIRMAN. Many decisions respecting the 3-mile limit came off the coast of San Diego and Pedro, during the days of prohibition; that is where they came from.

Mr. FELANDO. Yes; and that was a good time to come.

The CHAIRMAN. That was the bulk of them, during the enforcement of prohibition, that is when the 3-mile limit was laid down in legal decisions, for that particular purpose.

Mr. FELANDO. Well, my feeling is that this committee should examine the sanctions that are stated in the Tuna Convention Act. The CHAIRMAN. Are you for this bill, S. 1988?

Mr. FELANDO. Yes, I am.

The CHAIRMAN. But you don't like the imprisonment?

Mr. FELANDO. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. What makes you think a judge would put a fisherman in jail?

Mr. FELANDO. In the United States?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. FELANDO. Well

The CHAIRMAN. Unless he was a flagrant violator. This is merely authority of the court. They can fine him $2 if they feel like it.

Senator BARTLETT. The State of Alaska seized a Japanese vessel last year, and they didn't put the Japanese crew or officers in jail. They could have. The feeling ran high. It would have caused, had they done so, a highly favorable public response, but this wasn't done.

Mr. FELANDO. I feel there are other deterrents that would be more effective and would do the job equally as well. I think for the first violation, if you have a certain amount of money, for the second violation, another amount and a third, higher yet, and then finally the imposition of economic sanctions, an embargo of some type for a limited period of time, I think this would do the job.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the judge can do that under this. That is what they usually do. When it is your first offense, you get it easy, the second time you probably will get it harder and the third time, the sentence may go the whole way.

Mr. FELANDO. There is a limit in this bill, though.

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Felando, the bill doesn't provide that you can throw just any one into jail. It is very specific on that-the master or other person in charge of such a vessel, and he only. It doesn't mean everyone aboard. He is the responsible party. If he sins, he is going to pay for his sin under the terms of the bill. But, the sailor who obeys his orders won't.

Mr. FELANDO. My concern is the fact that I feel that we will get a reaction from other countries, that this will be looked upon by them as complete approval of seizing a vessel, forfeiting it, of taking the cargo, forfeiting that, of imprisoning American citizens, and I feel that this should be looked upon by the committee as a definite possibility and I feel that it should consider other measures to deter possible instructions or violations of the territorial waters of the United States.

Senator BARTLETT. Do the Canadians fish tuna?

Mr. FELANDO. They are planning to build a 168-foot seiner at the present time, and they fished off the coast of San Diego and Mexico last year, Senator.

Senator BARTLETT. Do you think, as a consequence of their going down that way, that they are going to repeal the law to which I referred.

Mr. FELANDO. No.

Senator BARTLETT. I have no further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no questions, either. I agree with the witness about the economic sanctions on tuna. But I don't quite

see the connection between that and this particular penalty in this particular case.

Mr. FELANDO. Well, in conclusion, I would like in my statement, to make it much more specific. I also would like to say that I have been involved in numerous seizures, and I have been involved in the human side of it, and I feel that we should not necessarily duplicate what others do.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator BARTLETT. On the record. By the way, not connected, the last time I heard the price of tuna for American fishermen had dropped in three successive stages, $20, $20, and $10. Is it at that same level yet?

Mr. FELANDO. The price of tuna, yellowfin tuna, in July of 1962, was $310.

Senator BARTLETT. How does that relate to the $50 reduction? Mr. FELANDO. At the present time it is $240. So we have had a $70 reduction.

Senator BARTLETT. $70 plus $50.

Mr. FELANDO. The overall reduction from July to July; July 1962 was $310, and July 1963 and at the present time, it is $240.

Senator BARTLETT. Another $20 reduction since I was in San Pedro.

Mr. FELANDO. Yes.

Senator BARTLETT. How about the prices paid for Japanese tuna? Have they gone down?

Mr. FELANDO. I understand the f.o.b. price, Japan, is now $275, and you add nother $70 for carrying charge, so the price is pretty good right now. We have not been that resilient.

Senator BARTLETT. Your people are hurting?

Mr. FELANDO. Yes, at the present time, combined with the lower price and also the unloading situation. However, we are catching fish, so perhaps maybe the volume at the end of the year will not be too bad.

Senator BARTLETT. Are your vessels still required to lie in harbor sometimes for weeks before they can sell?

Mr. FELANDO. I think we cleared up that situation this last week. We had at one time about 15,000 tons of fish waiting to unload in San Diego.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Felando.

Mr. FELANDO. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask this off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator BARTLETT. On the record.

Thank you, Mr. Felando.

There are some documents here that I would like to incorporate into the record.

(The documents follow:)

[From the Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1963]

INVASION OF U.S. TERRITORIAL WATERS BY RUSSIAN FISHING VESSELS

As in legislative session,

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, over the weekend an Associated Press news dispatch from Msocow carried a story in which the Russians claimed there was no proof that their fishing vessels have invaded our territorial waters. There is proof. Evidence was given last week at hearings on legislation to establish penalties for violations of our territorial waters that on several occasions Russian whaling vessels have been sighted within our territorial waters off the Alaksa coast.

The Associated Press dispatch to which I refer was printed in the Washington Evening Star for Saturday, September 7, among other newspapers. The headline was "Red Press Hits President and Ted Kennedy."

The text stated:

"Soviet propaganda organs today attacked both President Kennedy and his brother, Senator Edward Kennedy.

"The Senator was blasted for his remarks about Soviet fishing vessels off the New England coast.

"The official Soviet magazine Za Rubezhom (Life Abroad) said the Senator had failed to prove charges that the fishing vessels were violating American territorial limits or that they were spying.

"As to the presence of Soviet trawlers off Cape Cod,' Za Rubezhom added, 'It is pertinent to ask: Why shouldn't the Soviet ships be there?" "

I continue the quotation:

"Beyond the Cape is the Atlantic Ocean, which is known to be open for ships of all countries and all continents. *** It is naive to suppose that experienced Soviet sailors will be intimidated by the threats of the American Senator.

"The AP article went on to say, "The President was attacked by the official Soviet news agency Tass for an appeal he made to American businessmen.'

"Tass said the President is mainly interested in promoting the growth of corporations at the expense of the American worker."

The Soviet magazine said that there is no proof of the violation of American territorial waters on the part of Soviet fishing vessels.

I say there is. I say there is official proof. I have a report from the U.S. Coast Guard, dated today, September 9, 1963, official reporting additional incidents of Russian fishing vessels within the 3 mile limit off Alaska. In this instance the Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy attempted to pursue the vessels. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this incident, as supplied to me by the Coast Guard, be made a part of my remarks.

There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

"(a) Incident of August 28, 1963, off Adak, Alaska. On August 28, 1963, the CG Lorsta, Adak, reported to Commander, 17th Coast Guard District, that five Russian vessels were operating 5 to 10 miles north of Adak. Commander, 17th Coast Guard District, alerted Coast Guard units and requested Comalseafron to institute aerial surveillance from Adak and to dispatch a Navy tug from Adak to the area where the vessels were operating. The CGC Sorrel was in repair status and unable to get underway. Boarding officers from the Sorrel were placed on the Navy tug. Aircraft surveillance identified the vessels as four whale killers and one whale factory vessel, all Russian. One whale killer was observed by the aircraft to enter territorial waters. However, before the U.S. Navy tug arrived the Russian vessel had returned to the high seas. Since the aircraft had not signaled the Russian vessel to stop while it was in territorial waters, one of the conditions for establishing hot pursuit was lacking and the surface craft was therefore unable to continue the pursuit. Identification data and photos of the Russian vessels were obtained and are to be submitted to the Commandant. The Commander, 17th Coast Guard District, has been requested to provide additional information to confirm the actual position of the offending Russian whalers.

"(b) Incident of September 8, 1963, off Kodiak, Alaska. At 12:55 (local time) September 8, 1963, a Coast Guard aircraft from Kodiak arrived off Low Cape, Kodiak Island, in position 57 N. latitude, 155 W. longitude, investigating a complaint by U.S. fishing vessels that Russian fishing vessels were destroying U.S.owned crabbing gear. This area is approximately 12 miles southwest of Kodiak Island. Three SRTB's (NN852 Kapatcha, No. 1048 and No. 7591) were sighted within one-fourth mile of a line between the U.S. fishing vessels Vicky Lee and Lucky Star which were located on a north-south axis about 5 miles apart.

U.S.