Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Dow.

Mr. Dow. I have one or two questions. I thank you gentlemen for appearing. One question is this: That it is a matter of economics, if one of the boats is fined, then I support this reduces the gross take from the catch and that reduces the share of the members of the crew, is that correct?

Mr. BALLINGER. No, on the fine it doesn't reduce the earnings of the crew other than the amount of delay that he had. But as a usual thing, attached with a fine, they are forced to buy a fishing permit before they leave port, and under our agreement with the boatowners the permit is made a part of trip expense. We consider the forcings of the buying of this fishing permit is illegal because the boat was not fishing within the 12-mile limit nor had he any intention to do so. But they force them to buy the fishing permit and fine them also.

Mr. Dow. What would a typical fishing permit cost?

Mr. BALLINGER. It varies on the size of the boat. I would say roughly the average would be $2,800 to $3,000.

Mr. Dow. The boatowner then stands the cost of the fine and the fishing permit, is that right, not the crew members? This doesn't affect the crew member?

Mr. BALLINGER. The crew members pay their percentage of the fishing permit, but nothing of the fine.

Mr. Dow. Why is it scot free on the fine but not on the fishing permit?

Mr. BALLINGER. Well, in our agreement it says to the effect that if a boat is fined, they pay all fines. I forget the phraseology, but it is something to the effect that if he is fined for doing some illegal act, you see. Mr. Dow. To listen to the accounts here, Mr. Ballinger, and I know they are not exaggerated, one would form the impression that practically every boat that went down there would be apprehended and taken in and fined, but I expect that you people wouldn't continue to go down there unless a good many of you managed to get off scot free or managed to return with a full catch of fish.

I just wonder, out of all the trips that are made, how many are actually picked up by the South American countries and subjected to restraint or penalty.

Mr. BALLINGER. Well, I couldn't tell you the total trips to begin with, sir. Mr. Felando, who is going to follow me here, does have a considerable amount of statistics on this, but to try to answer your question, and I am not parrying it, I just don't know the answer. No, every boat that goes out isn't seized.

My own thought is that, depending on their need for money in a particular locality, they decide to go out and seize a few boats and pick up a few bucks. This is my opinion.

Mr. Dow. A good proportion of the industry manages to go down there and come home with a catch with no interference?

Mr. BALLINGER. A good number of them, yes.

Mr. Dow. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Morton.

Mr. MORTON. Getting at the question a little differently than my colleague from New York, Mr. Ballinger, how many vessels are there in the total tuna fleet that expose themselves to this risk?

Mr. BALLINGER. I believe the total vessels that go that far down would be in the neighborhood of probably 70 to 80 vessels.

Mr. MORTON. Involving how many people?

Mr. BALLINGER. Well, some of the bigger vessels that fish down below all the time have bigger crews. Our boats sailing out of San Diego on an average of from 12 to 13 crew members aboard them. Some of the larger ton vessels have larger crews than that, 15 or 16.

Mr. MORTON. We are dealing with perhaps a total of about a thousand people?

Mr. BALLINGER. Roughly.

Mr. MORTON. What would be the total value of the catch of these vessels dockside at their home ports?

Mr. BALLINGER. That would depend a great deal on the price of the fish at the time, of course.

Mr. MORTON. In a given year?

Mr. BALLINGER. I would rather leave that to Mr. Felando who has the figures readily available, but it runs into the millions of dollars.

Mr. MORTON. You mentioned the fact that I said that I would like to create a situation where the vessels would not be seized. This is very true. My real concern here is that we pass a bill, that well spells out what we want to do.

There are two ways to skin a cat. One is to provide reimbursement and the other way is to in some way negotiate a much more reasonable figure for licensing and realize that you are paying the beggars off, but at the same time doing it at a much lower figure, and there must be some cost involved to them to seize one of our boats.

I am concerned that we are going to pass this bill and everybody is going to be very happy about it, and then nothing is going to happen. Probably one thing will happen, the bill will get vetoed. You rest assured that this committee under the able leadership of Mr. Dingell will come up with as good a package as possibly can be developed for the protection of your people and the protection of the industry. Mr. BALLINGER. Thank you very much.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Pollock?

Mr. POLLOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentlemen for their testimony. Some of the questions I had in mind have been answered. I feel like my colleague from Maryland, that I am not sure that whatever we do will have any real meaning in the final analysis. I hope that we have the courage to simply cut off our aid to these countries when they do exact this tribute--and that is what it is— from our fishermen. This tribute is actually coming from the American taxpayers, and unless we act with determination to stop these raids on the high seas, I think it is going to do us no good to sit and deliberate on it now.

I think these bills are a good step in the right direction, and if you have any suggestions for putting sharper, stronger teeth in them, we would surely like to hear about it.

Mr. BALLINGER. Congressman, this again is a thought of mine. I would think that, with enactment of a piece of legislation such as we are talking about here and the seizures got to be of a great extent within the 2-mile scope and the Government got to reimbursing a lot of boats for illegal fines and illegal seizures, that maybe this in itself might prompt the State Department to take some pretty strong action

in negotiations with these countries asking those people to cease and desist from doing this.

This might in itself be a pretty strong argument, arguing point from the State Department's point of view.

Mr. POLLOCK. Perhaps the gentleman who is with you who is involved in this could answer this. Do you have any idea how much time is lost on the average seizure? It takes some time to either tow or have these vessels go in under their own power.

Mr. HOINSKY. Congressman, the best thing I would suggest if I were permitted to do so would be to parry this question over to Mr. Felando for the simple reason that he has the actual time lost on every seizure and he has it all prorated and can answer that.

Mr. POLLOCK. Very. good. I will withhold that.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Reinecke?

Mr. REINECKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, wearing your SIU hats for a moment, has there been any thought on the part of the unions to the possibility of a different method of operation over those waters such as a mother type of ship, a cooperative fishing venture where the smaller boats would unload their catches onto a larger mother ship that might make the run back to San Diego and allow the other boats to stay in that area for a longer period of time?

Would this aggravate the situation, do you feel, both from the foreign government point of view and also from your union point of view? Mr. HOINSKY. I would like to answer that, Congressman Reinecke, if I may. In 1954 and 1955 I was involved in a mother ship type of operation off of Capa Blanco in Peru, and we had a vessel called the Alaska Reefer. There were three or four vessels engaged, and just out of nowhere they came with cruisers, six of them, and took 14 of our boats, and after they got through fining them in Talara, Peru, they got hold of the Alaska Reefer.

I will give you a typical case. The boarding officers saw the owner who was aboard, and he gave them $100 apiece and they said, "Fine. You can go now," and they took off on their vessel, and 10 minutes later another boarding party came in and said, "Now you are under arrest." You just can't pay them enough or pay them off. Mr. PELLY. They have no respect for motherhood.

Mr. HOINSKY. They sure do not have it.

Mr. REINECKE. I have one statement Mr. Chairman.

As a result of my recent marriage, I found out that one of the items in my wife's dowry was a substantial interest in one of the tuna boats named the Sea Preme which has been involved in this particular problem, and I want to say for the record that I have since sold that interest and no longer have a conflict of interest.

Mr. DINGELL. Gentlemen, the Chair is grateful to you for your comments today. There is one thing that I am interested in, and that is that some of the bills provide for compensation as a result of death or injury to a crewmember incident to such seizure. What would be the position of you or your organization that you represent in regard to provision for compensation as a result of death or injury of a crewmember in a seizure?

Mr. HOINSKY. In the event of a death or an injury to a crewmember, in my particular organization, when a crewmember dies right at this particular moment all his family looks forward to is a $1,000 death benefit and that today, as you may well know, won't even bury you, and it depends if the vessel happens to have a partial load, half load, or so forth.

We do have stipulations in the contract depending on the situation as to whether he would get the full share from the crew share of the money or the full share coming from the boat owner's money if he had fish onboard, but if he was unlucky enough to catch one of the bullets that they throw around down there occasionally, and there were no fish onboard, all he would have to look forward to in my organization is a $1,000 death benefit.

Mr. DINGELL. Would you favor then such a provision or would you have no strong feelings on it?

Mr. HOINSKY. I would favor very, very much a form of compensation because really and truly to realize how serious it is you would have to be on one of those vessels when one of the planes comes strafing or they fire at you from another vessel.

Mr. DINGELL. Are there any appreciable number of incidents involving strafings?

Mr. HOINSKY. I personally have been involved in three since 1954. Mr. BALLINGER. I would just like to say, yes, we are very much in favor of that particular provision in the bill, to be reimbursed for death of one of the crewmembers. While there have not been any real serious injuries because of these shootings, when people board your vessel brandishing firearms and tempers get high, there certainly is a very grave possibility of one of these instances being real disastrous, and I say yes we are very much in favor of that particular part of the bill to reimburse in case of serious injury or death to anyone aboard the vessel.

Mr. PELLY. The chairman may remember that we had a captain from my district in Seattle who got shot in the knee. He came back here but he never could get any compensation for a tremendous medical bill that he had. I think that it is one of the most important provisions in our bill.

Mr. BALLINGER. Yes, I agree, Congressman.

Mr. DINGELL. Gentlemen, we thank you.

The Chair has received a phone call from our friend and colleague, the Honorable Paul Rogers, who has asked that I express his regrets that he is not able to be present because of legislation pending in another committee. Also he asks the Chair to note that Mr. Bill Neblett, of Key West, who is executive officer of the National Shrimp Associa tion, will not be able to attend the hearings because of sudden illness. Without objection, Mr. Neblett will be afforded opportunity to file an appropriate statement and we regret the unfortunate circumstances which prevent his presence.

The Chair is happy to welcome next Mr. August Felando, manager of the American Tunaboat Association, accompanied by Mr. Charles R. Carry, of the Tuna Research Foundation. The Chair is happy to welcome you.

The Chair might note that it is particualarly happy to see Mr. Carry back.

STATEMENT OF AUGUST FELANDO, GENERAL MANAGER, AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES R. CARRY, TUNA RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Mr. CARRY. It is always a pleasure to appear before you, Congressman Dingell, and other members of the committee. You have always been very kind to us even when we have disagreed with you on occasion. Mr. PELLY. That is like a happy family. Every time you have a fight, it is more fun to make up.

Mr. CARRY. That is right, and I might add that it is rather unusual to see Mr. Felando and Mr. Carry sitting at the same table.

Mr. DINGELL. Gentlemen, you are welcome for whatever testimony you choose to give. If you will, please, gentlemen, give your full names and addresses to the reporter.

Mr. FELANDO. I am August Felando. I am appearing before this subcommittee on behalf of the American Tunaboat Association. I am the general manager of this nonprofit fishery cooperative association, incorporated under the laws of the State of California, with its principal office of business in San Diego, Calif.

The American Tunaboat Association has been in existence for over 40 years. The membership is comprised exclusively of tuna fishing vessel owners. Annually, our members catch and unload over 60 percent of all tropical tunas landed in the United States by vessels operating from the United States. Some of our members operate from Puerto Rico. Of the some 38,000 tons of frozen tuna carrying capacity in the entire American tuna fleet, about 25,000 tons are represented by the membership of the American Tunaboat Association.

For the purpose of this hearing, I am also representing National Marine Terminal, Inc. This firm operates 12 modern tuna purse seiners from San Diego, Calif.

In addition I am also authorized to speak for the Fishermen's Cooperative Association of San Pedro, Calif. You have a copy of my statement, some tables, and also a compilation of affidavits.

I would appreciate it also if all such documents would be included in this record.

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. FELANDO. We are most grateful to the many Congressmen who have introduced bills designed to amend the act of August 27, 1954, relating to the seizure of vessels of the United States by foreign countries. The bills I refer to are H.R. 4451, H.R. 4452, H.R. 5148, H.R. 6785, H.R. 4153, H.R. 4346, H.R. 4350, and H.R. 9015.

We closely examined each of these bills, and each of them is directed toward those portions of the act of August 27, 1954, that need amendment. For instance, many of our members are very sympathetic toward the approach taken in H.R. 4451, and in H.R. 4452, particularly as to that part of these bills, commencing on page 2, line 23, and terminating on page 3 line 5.

We have just had an opportunity late yesterday afternoon to see a proposed draft bill offered by the Department of the Interior and I understand also by the Department of State, that more closely fits the essential needs of our members and we would strongly advise or point the attention of the members to this proposed measure. We support this proposed bill.