Mr. VAN DEERLIN. A more recent and equally beloved President said, "We must not fear to negotiate."

I think that is what we have to do, and we have to try to negotiate without irreparably tying the hands of our State Department.

Mr. REINECKE. The State Department has had the opportunity to negotiate but has failed to do so. That same President also said, "We must not negotiate out of fear."

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. The State Department has been coming along a little better recently. Emotionally I am with you, Ed. It is just that I think we have to show a little statesmanship now and then.

Mr. PELLY. If the gentleman will yield, the situation seems to be like the Vietcong. They won't negotiate. The Latin Americans won't negotiate. It is hard to get people to understand anything when there is arm twisting involved.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Quite so, and I have no doubt that, if a bill comes to the House floor with an arbitrary cutoff, it will pick up a lot of votes from parts of the country having no interest in our problem. But I also think it will kill any chances of passage in the Senate, where a little broader responsibility might be shown.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Dow.

Mr. Dow. I want to compliment our colleague, Mr. Van Deerlin, for representing his constituents so ably and faithfully, and I also want to compliment him on what he calls the broad view in our foreign policy. I am glad he has the wisdom to see that this problem is just not a matter of who is the toughest in the situation, but is a matter of maintaining those relations around the world that we will need in order to combat communism in an enlightened fashion.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Dow.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Helstoski.

Mr. HELSTOSKI. I just want to compliment my colleague on his presentation this morning, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Van Deerlin, the committee is grateful for your interest in this matter and your great help.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Our next witness is our good friend and colleague, the Honorable Bob Wilson, author of H.R. 9015.

Mr. Wilson, you may present whatever testimony you choose on the legislation before the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. WILSON. I am happy to appear, Mr. Chairman, not only as the people but as a representative of the most important tuna landing port in the country. I am here to testify on behalf of one of my bills, H.R. 9015, which is similar to the bill introduced by Mr. Pelly and Mr. Reinecke, which calls for a mandatory foreign aid cutoff for such seizures, I will say that I do have a brief statement which I would like to read, but prior to that, I would like to say that I was one of the original sponsors of the legislation in 1954 which became known as the Vessel Protective Act or the Fishermen's Protective Act as we originally called it.

I want it clearly understood that this bill did not result in the seizures, as some people seem to thing happened. There were a number of

seizures and unreasonable fines placed on the fishing boats by Latin American countries, and that was the reason for the legislation. It was to require the Federal Government to immediately reimburse or pay the fine and to allow the boats to return home and then negotiate with the countries as to whether the fine was reasonable or legal in any way. I don't think this has resulted in the Latin American countries seizing more boats but I do think that the bill needs amendment to include not only the fines but also the other costs that are involved in the detention of such fishing boats.

This legislation is needed not only to protect the welfare and rights of American fishermen but to impress upon those Latin American countries seizing our fishing boats on the high seas that the United States will no longer tolerate these acts of piracy.

These bills would do two things. First, they would provide reimbursements by the U.S. Government of all costs and losses suffered by the owners of American fishing vessels seized in waters recognized by the United States as the high seas. These costs and losses would include fines levied by the seizing nations, fees or charges for fishing permits to effect release, losses of fishing gear, and losses of catch resulting from the forced idleness of the vessel. Additional compensation would be paid as a result of death or injury of a crew member and other reasonable expenses incurred as a result of seizure. Second, the Secretary of State would be required to collect from the foreign country involved an amount of money equal to the reimbursement paid by our Government to the seized vessel. This does not mean complete foreign aid cutoff as was indicated by prior testimony. This means only reimbursement for the costs involved. However, if the foreign country failed to make payment of our Government's claim within 120 days, then the President would be required to suspend all assistance under the Foreign Aid Act to that country.

Frankly there would be no need for the Vessel Protective Act or these proposed amendments if the Latin American countries seizing our vessels would adopt reasonable offshore fishing limits as have most of the other nations of the world.

I really believe that my bill would deter the seizure of our fishing vessels off South America which has been occurring since 1951. What we have here are nations who willingly accept our foreign aid with one hand and yank our fishermen off the seas with the other. We have permitted these seizures for too long. It is time the United States demonstrates that it will no longer be held up for tribute to fish in waters that belong to the world community. There is no question that the Latin countries making extraordinary claims of soveignty over offshore waters view the seizures of our vessels as a handsome source of revenue. Since 1955 our tuna industry has paid $489,470 in fines to Latin American countries. This is in addition to license and registration fees which have totaled $61,603 since 1961. These costs do not include the economic losses incurred by our fishermen because their boats were detained in Latin American ports. It has been estimated that the economic loss of the vessels seized since 1961 totals $544,105. This is the value of the catch these boats would have landed had they been able to fish the days they were under detention. In short, these Latin countries have extracted more than $1 million from our tuna industry and U.S. Treasury under the guise of sovereignty.

It is for these reasons that I earnestly urge this subcommittee to approve the bills I have discussed here. It is unjust to continue asking American tuna fishermen to risk life and property in the pursuit of their livelihood just because our Government has been too timid to protect their rights to work on the high seas off South America.

It is unfortunate that the Latin American countries claiming 200mile offshore fishing limits refuse to take this dispute off the high seas and put it on the negotiation table. The United States has indicated its willingness to settle the issue either by arbitration or through a suit in the International Court of Justice. But our invitations have been ignored.

Through enactment of legislation proposed by Congressmen Pelly, Reinecke, and myself, the offending nations will know the reprisals they can expect if the illegal seizures continue. Then perhaps they will see the wisdom of seeking a negotiated settlement of this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.

The committee is grateful to you for your very helpful testimony this morning. The Chair is well aware of your long interest in this matter and the work that you have done to protect the interests of the American fishermen.

Mr. Pelly.

Mr. PELLY. I would like to welcome our colleague and to thank him for making a very fine contribution to the record on this legislation. He has certainly shown a tremendous interest throughout the years. There is one statement or word you used which I think was just a slip. After discussing the Vessel or Fishermen's Protective Act, in which you had a prominent part, you indicated that it was necessary, as I recall your testimony, to change this bill so as to include all expenses. I think you meant change this law, rather than bill.

Mr. WILSON. This law, yes, you are right. I meant to amend the Fishermen's Protective Act or Vessel Protective Act, right.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Dow.

Mr. Dow. No. I would just like to thank you, Mr. Wilson, for a very fine statement.

Mr. WILSON. Thank you.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Morton.

Mr. MORTON. I tried to follow your testimony as closely as I could, Bob, and I understand what you are driving at. There is the question

in

my mind as to whether these countries can go 200 miles or whether they can only go 12 miles in establishing their sovereignty.

If all of the Latin American countries, including the continental countries of South America, were to extend their sovereign rights to, 200 miles this then is a basic conflict between our concept of international waters and theirs. Yet, if they all do it the question in my mind would be as to whether they had the right to do it. If they did have the right to do it, we are in a much bigger problem than simply protecting individual boats that are caught in the 200-mile mark.

Do you think we ought to attempt to negotiate with them on a blanket licensing basis to allow our tuna vessels into this 200-mile envelope rather than just arbitrarily not recognizing the 200-mile range?

Mr. WILSON. Well, I would think you would be in effect admitting their claim to 200 miles if you agreed to any sort of a licensing arrangement on that basis. I think it has been a pretty firm position by the United States that their claims are not recognized under international law and by our agreeing, as a nation anyway, to licensing rather than as individual fishermen might agree, I think we might in effect be perpetuating their claim. Not all countries of Latin America claim the 200 miles. There is no agreement even among those countries. This is a very serious and complicated matter but it does not solve the problem that has been plaguing the fishermen for some 15 years and I would think that the bills that are under question here would take another step forward making Latin American countries realize that we have a point of view that is worth listening to and under the provisions of the Pelly bill.

I don't think it is unreasonable in any way to ask the Latin American countries just tit for tat to give back the money that they have collected from our Government under the Fishermen's Protective Act under these seizures which we claim are illegal. I think it is a very reasonable approach to make it mandatory and only on the basis of the amount of the fines that have been levied. I do not think and I agree with Mr. Reinecke that the President has had the opportunity over the years as the Chief Executive of this country to show much more strength than has been indicated in this matter. I don't think he needs the so-called Kuchel provisionary approach to deny foreign aid. Certainly it would be very simple to put economic sanctions against those Latin American countries that continue to harass our fishermen. He has had that through the years but it has not been applied. I think by giving him a little more strengthening of negotiating backbone in this instance we can accomplish more and will solve this problem.

Mr. MORTON. I agree with that 100 percent. I think we have to apply pressure. The question is whether we should apply the pressure on sort of an individual basis or whether we should just not let it be known in the whole gamut of Latin American countries. I think that nearly all the major countries where we are having this problem are under this 200-mile limit and it would seem to me that if in the beginning of these foreign-aid programs we just laid down the law and said this is a program we have and one of the things is that we don't recognize the 200-mile fishing sovereignty and, therefore, let's have that understanding from the very beginning before we start pumping the money in, I think then they would be a bit nervous about seizing these vessels.

Mr. WILSON. It sounds like a fisherman's utopia. I am sure they would welcome that kind of provision if it were written into the Foreign-Aid Act.

Mr. MORTON. That is where it probably belongs more than it belongs here. That is the point I am getting at. We will get the testimony from the State Department. I am glad to see Mr. McKernan here. We will see what they think is the best way to go about it. I just think for us to let one of our fishing vessels be seized and somebody take $20,000 or $30,000 or $50,000 from the vessel, and then turn around and pump $5 million or $6 million into Alliance for Progress funds for that particular country makes an international jester out of us, and I don't like it a bit.

Mr. PELLY. Will the gentlemean yield?

Mr. MORTON. I yield.

Mr. PELLY. I might say that I personally took great pains to draft a bill that would not go to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Historically the legislation in that committee contained a provision that the President had the right, if he thought it in the national interest, to waive such provisions and therefore we would be wasting our time to pass the bill since the President would do as he has always done, like giving aid to Egypt. We cut off aid to Egypt, but the President found it in the national interest to pay it. I would rather not waste the time in trying to get legislation that is going to be ineffective.

I think that is why we came to this committee that has the interests of the fisherman at heart and would come up with some legislation that would actually be effective.

Mr. MORTON. The whole point is that if we pass the Wilson bill or Reinecke bill, or your bill, are we going to get the job done?

Mr. PELLY. It has the teeth in it. It would be a question of either they cease and desist from seizing our boats or reimburse us if they do for full cost or they don't get any foreign aid. That is all there is to it. They are certainly not going to jeopardize millions of dollars for a few thousand dollars in fines.

Mr. MORTON. The last question: Do you think if this is written into the law just as it is written here in the Wilson and Pelly bill and it is not vetoed by the President, that the foreign aid actually would be

cut off?

Mr. PELLY. I will say that, if it is in the law, I would certainly believe that it would have to be cut off; it is mandatory.

Mr. MORTON. I will bet you a cow to a racehorse that it would not be cut off.

Mr. PELLY. I cannot believe that the executive branch has gotten to the point where it is so strong that it would defy the legislative branch. I would hope that we still have our coequal branches of Government and that it is for the Congress to pass laws and for the executive to carry out those laws.

Mr. MORTON. Where there is life there is hope.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Pollock?

Mr. POLLOCK. I have no questions.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Dow?

Mr. Dow. I have no questions.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Helstoski?

Mr. HELSTOSKI. I have not questions.

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. DINGELL. Our next witness is our distinguished colleague, the Honorable Kika de la Garza, author of the bill H.R. 6785.

We know of his interest in this matter and welcome his remarks.

STATEMENT OF HON. KIKA de la GARZA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I thank you for the privilege of appearing before you this morning in support of my bill, H.R. 6785, relating to the protection of vessels of the United States on the high seas and in territorial waters of foreign

countries.

The language of H.R. 6785 provides in any instance where a vessel of the United States is seized by a foreign country under the condi