tions of section 2 of this act, the owners of such vessel shall be reimbursed by the Secretary of the Treasury in an amount certified by the Secretary of State as the amount necessary to reimburse the owners for all losses and claims arising out of such seizure, including, but not limited to, loss of the vessel, fishing gear, equipment, catch, and loss of income resulting from enforced idleness of the vessel after detention and before release, all fines, fees, or other charges arising out of such seizure-including fees, charges, and related costs for fishery permits or licenses-paid to such foreign country to secure prompt release of the vessel and crew, and all other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with such seizure. Mr. Chairman, the act of August 27, 1954, under which the shrimp industry and other fishing industries have been working has, in practice, only reimbursed to the owners of fishing vessels actual fines paid to the arresting foreign countries to release the vessels. These arrests have been made on the high seas in waters over which the arresting countries claim jurisdiction and which claims the United States has not recognized. Representatives of the Texas Shrimp Association, whose headquarters are in Brownsville, based in my 15th Texas District, endorse this bill. They advised me that beginning in April 1962, there have been 27 arrests of Texas-based shrimp boats by the Government of Mexico up to the present time. Incidentally, part of the arrests have been made by minesweepers which the United States furnished Mexico for national defense. The fines have varied in amount but have generally been $1,600 assessed by the Mexican Marina (Navy) and $1,600 assessed by Pesca (fishing department). These fines have been reimbursed by our Government. There are always charges for clearing the port to which the vessel and the owner have been brought for trial. The catch may vary from a few dollars to several thousand dollars in value and the gear, which consists of nets, boards, et cetera, is, the shrimpers tell me, confiscated. The net and gear are valued in the neighborhood of $1,500. The hearings by the Mexican officials usually tie the boats in port for approximately a week, which represents a loss of time from fishing effort as well as useless expense maintaining the vessel's crews. Occasionally there are other charges in connection with the incidents that are expensive in time, claimed damages, or fines. The average total cost of such arrests in Mexico approximates $6,000, of which approximately $3,200 is reimbursed by our Government. Mr. Chairman, shortly after I came to the Congress as a freshman, one of the first real crises I faced in representing the district was the seizure by Mexico of one of our boats. The claim is presently approved but is pending for payment in the appropriation bill now before the Congress. The incident occurred in January 1965, in which there was an accidental collision with the arresting Mexican patrol boat. The captain and crewman were charged with willful ramming of the patrol boat, damaging government property, et cetera, and were detained in jail at Tuxpan, Vera Cruz. The release of the crewman was effected within several weeks, but the captain was held until December 22, 1965, when the Mexican Judiciary ruled the ramming to have been accidental. In this case a Mexican attorney was retained throughout the yearinvestigating, defending, and appealing the case. Total actual outlay in cash was $10,171.94, of which probably $3,200 will be the extent of reimbursement by the United States, although claim was made for other outlays that were incidental to the arrest which was made in an area then regarded by the United States as high seas. The total loss in this case is seized catch, loss of gear, expense of maintaining a reasonable sanitary and healthy standard of living in the jail, and loss of time for both men, defense attorney and cost of legal proceedings, fines, repair costs assessed by the Mexican Government in connection. with the damaged patrol boat would be no less than $15,000. With numerous countries extending their territorial claims or fisheries jurisdiction to as much as 200 miles, and increasing the amount of their fines beyond all reason, a burden is being imposed that the individual boatowner cannot carry and many operators will be driven. from the seas. Some operators have already discontinued operating in such controversial areas. Mr. Chairman, if you and the members of the committee will bear with me a few minutes, I would like to read to you a letter I received from my constitutent, Mr. Bascom Cox, who is the counsel for the Texas Shrimp Association. Mr. Cox wrote this letter to me in reply to my having sent him a copy of H.R. 6785: DEAR KIKA: I certainly thank you for your favor of the 9th instant enclosing a copy of H.R. 6785 which you have introduced to liberalize the various items of reimbursement under the Fishermen's Protective Act. Although, since the extension of the fisheries zone by the United States to twelve marine miles, the Fishermen's Protective Act will afford relief for Texas Shrimpers only in rare cases, I definitely think that the Fishermen's Protective Act should be broadened to include reimbursement for actual losses sustained instead of merely for the fine paid. Prior to the extension of the fisheries zone by the U.S. to twelve marine miles, the official position of the United States was, of course, that the high seas extended to within three marine miles off the Coast of Mexico. Accordingly, under the Fishermen's Protective Act, the fisherman was entitled to reimbursement for any fines paid for seizures beyond the three marine mile distance from the Mexican Coast. With the adoption of the twelve marine miles fisheries zone by the United States, a Texas shrimper is now entitled only to reimbursement if seizures is made more than twelve marine miles off the Mexican Coast. As you know, practically all seizures by Mexico have been made in what is known as "the Tampico Banks," being roughly the East Coast of Mexico extending from Vera Cruz north. Practically no seizures have been made in the Campeche Banks area, which is roughly the East Coast of Mexico extending from Vera Cruz south, principally because in the Campeche Banks shrimp fishing is done far off the coast; that is, at least twenty-five miles or more off the Mexican Coast. Although the extension of the coverage of the Fishermen's Protective Act might not materially benefit the shrimp industry at this time, it is hoped that negotiations might result in some official agrement with Mexico, whereby the extension of the coverage of such Fishermen's Protective Act might be beneficial in the future. As the gentlemen of the committee are aware, informal and exploratory conversations between representatives of Mexico and the United States on fisheries questions of mutual interest have been concluded. The motive of the conversation was the recent changes which both countries have made in their laws relating to jurisdiction over marine fisheries within the contiguous zones off their territorial seas, and their purpose was to exchange views regarding the conditions under which the U.S. fishermen may be permitted to continue their traditional fisheries in that zone. The Mexican law establishing an exclusive fisheries zone between 9 and 12 miles off the Mexican coast provides that under certain conditions foreign fishermen may continue their traditional fishing activities within that zone during the 5 years commencing with 1968. As I know you gentlemen are also aware, these areas where the views of the two delegations were found to be in agreement, as well as the reservations and suggestions of both delegations in other areas, are incorporated into a joint report to our governments. The report contains points which could serve as the basis on which traditional fishing by nationals of each country may continue within the exclusive fishery zone of the other country during a limited period of time. It is my hope that this report will serve as the basis for further considerations toward reaching an agreement between the Mexican and the U.S. Govern ments. Mr. Chairman, needless to say, I am hopeful that passage of legislation such as H.R. 6785 will eventually prove beneficial to the shrimping industry, which is one of the more important economic factors of the area I represent. Moreover, I feel this legislation is needed for the benefit of all the fishing industry, the tuna fishermen, the_halibut fishermen, and all the commercial fishermen of the high seas. Between the rapid proliferation of countries extending their territorial waters farther and farther and the problems with which our fishermen are faced on the other hand through inadequate construction subsidies for the "super trawlers" needed to compete with other nations such as Russia, the fisherman is caught in a real squeeze and I sincerely feel favorable action on H.R. 6785 would provide a badly needed shot in the arm to the entire industry. It is my hope that the gentlemen who are so patiently listening this morning will see matters in the same light. Thank you. Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. de la Garza. Are there any questions? Thank you. We appreciate your contribution to our consideration of these bills. Mr. DINGELL. Counsel advises that Mr. Felando and Mr. Carry and Mr. Steve Edney and Mr. Hoinsky and Mr. Les Ballinger are present. Do I understand that you gentlemen wish to appear together? Give your full name to the reporter. STATEMENTS OF STEVE EDNEY, PRESIDENT, CANNERY WORKERS UNION OF THE PACIFIC AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA; STEVEN J. HOINSKY, REPRESENTING SEINE & LINE FISHERMEN'S UNION, SAN PEDRO, CALIF.; AND LESTER BALLINGER, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE CANNERY WORKERS & FISHERMEN'S UNION OF SAN DIEGO, CALIF. Mr. BALLINGER. My name is Lester Ballinger, and I am a vice president of the Seafarers' International Union of North America. I am executive secretary of the Cannery Workers & Fishermen's Union of San Diego, Calif. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for calling this meeting to hear these various bills, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the Congressmen who introduced legislation to correct a situation in the fishing industry that is becoming almost unbearable for the fishermen as well as the boatowner. I will leave it up to other people to give the statistics on the seizures, but I think it will suffice for me to say that we are not experts in legislation and we would leave it up to the experts in this field to finalize a bill that would do what we want done, and then I will tell you what we would like to have done. The teeth in getting this done, of course, have to be in the bill. How this is or what procedure it takes to do this, I say we would leave up to the experts, whether it is cutting off foreign aid or sending Coast Guard vessels down there or whatever is necessary to do this, but our fishermen, as most of you know, work on a share basis on these vessels, and their wages at the end of the trip are determined by the amount of fish that is brought in and taking off the expenses of the trip. Then the remainder is divided into a share for the boatowner and the remainder is divided up in equal shares to the amount of crewmembers that were on the vessel. It is very important to the crewmembers then that the trip be completed as soon as possible and with the least amount of expense as possible, because the less amount of expense and the quicker the trip, the more money they make. We have had vessels detained for many, many days in these foreign ports at a time when runs of fish were good. They could have caught a load of fish, been home and unloaded, but in the meantime they are sitting in some port seized. They can't get out. They are waiting for the State Department to neogtiate a release which very seldom happens without them paying a fine, getting a license, et cetera, although the records show that they were well outside of what we consider to be the legal limit which is 12 miles. Now, I am not going to pick any particular bill. We like all of them. We are just very hopeful that through the wisdom of the Congress that a compromise bill or all of these bills will be put together and out of it will come a piece of legislation that will at least assure a boatowner and a crew on one of these vessels that for the time he is seized illegally that he gets reasonable compensation for his time he spent during this illegal seizure in one of these foreign ports. This is what we are looking for. Now, of course, one of the gentlemen previously said something about something to create a condition that these boats wouldn't be seized. Well, I think this would be fine if this would happen but I think you are going to have some boats seized even regardless of legislation, and I think you need the remedial action in the legislation to take care of these situations where a boat is seized, to reimburse the boatowner and the crew for the reasonable loss that they sustained during these seizures. Gentlemen, this is about all I have to say. This is a very important thing to us. Our fishermen, as well as the boatowners have sustained a considerable amount of loss in money from these seizures. I thank you very much for allowing me to appear out of turn. I appreciate it very much. Mr. DINGELL. The committee is grateful to you for your testimony. The Chair notes that you have Mr. Hoinsky and Mr. Edney present. Mr. BALLINGER. That is correct. Mr. DINGELL. Perhaps before we recognize these gentlemen, is there anything you have to add to the testimony given by Mr. Ballinger? 82-015-67- -5 Mr. HOINSKY. Mr. Chairman, my name is Steven J. Hoinsky. I represent the Seine & Line Fishermen's Union in San Pedro. I would like to thank you for the opportunity of being heard, and the only thing that I would like to add is, at your discretion, if you have any particular questions on specifics or the type of operations that are carried on during boardings and seizings. I would be very, very happy to answer the questions because I have been personally involved in many of them. All I can say along those lines is, if you have read Jules Verne or heard of Blackbeard the Pirate, they were pikers. Thank you very much. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Edney, did you have any comments? Mr. DINGELL. Would you give your full name? Mr. EDNEY. My name is Steve Edney, and I am president of the Cannery Workers Union of the Pacific, and vice president of the Seafarers' International Union of North America. Mr. Chairman, I do not represent any fishermen as such, but our destiny is tied with theirs in this matter. I think this is certainly an issue of freedom of the seas, but I also think in this issue the question of the survival of the tuna industry in southern California is raised. Every bit of tribute that we pay by these fines and time lost adds to the cost of a can or a case of tuna and by this action the housewife is forced to pay more for the tunafish which she buys even though the taxpayer reimburses the fishermen for the fine. There are many other costs, for instance, the lost time that could be better spent making other catches and the long wait to be reimbursed from the fines as imposed. I, like the two previous speakers certainly am not claiming to be expert in this particular field and I am certainly not choosing sides on the various bills that are before us here. The only point that I would make here is to say that I certainly appreciate the interest of the members of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee in coming up with some sort of a solution to this most vexing problem and I am sure that out of this we will get a very good bill. I would like also to say in closing that our destiny is certainly tied with the fishermen and our fishing industry is in a very sad state, this problem is not only the tuna industry's problem but is also a problem of national concern and if you can do anything for us, I certainly hope that you will act very soon because each day and each hour that goes by we are further challenged by this serious situation. If you can find some measure of protection for the fishermen, I think this will contribute to the renaissance to the fishing industry in California because then we will be dealing with the question of cost and this is important to our survival. I know that there are many bills here and I would like to say without being redundant that we will trust your good judgment to work out some acceptable solution that we can all live with. Thank you very much. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Pelly. Mr. PELLY. I have no questions. |