enforced idleness of the seized vessel and crew, I have the following comments. Table IV has been prepared for this subcommittee for the purposes of indicating the losses sustained by the U.S. tuna fleet during the period 1961-June 1967. Our estimate, using the tables concerning price, catch rate, and composition of catch comes to $544,105.40. Our method of computing the losses was not based upon the formulas prescribed in section 7(a) (2), however, we have no objection to such formula. In the tuna industry, the average catch per day at sea is carefully and scientifically established by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. The language concerning the distribution of the compensation would have application in the tuna industry quite easily because collective bargaining agreements prevail in the industry. I should like to point out only two instances to illustrate the need for section 7(a) (2). On August 3, 1962, the tuna vessel, White Star was seized by the Government of Ecuador. Thirty-four days later, the vessel was released. No fine was imposed. During that period of detention, the crew left the vessel and the vessel sustained serious damage from lack of care and maintenance. As a result of such seizure, the owners had no recovery for the losses sustained under the U.S. Vessel Protective Act. The same result occurred in the case involving the Lou Jean and the seizures in which the foreign country admitted error later. I have some additional comments. Congress, when it enacted the U.S. Vessel Protective Act, imposed a duty upon the Secretary of State to recover from the foreign country any money expended by the United States under the provisions of this act. In Report No. 2214, of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, August 4, 1954, pages 3 and 4, concerning this act, it was stated: Section 5 is for the purpose of letting the Secretary of State know that the Congress expects him, eventually, to recover from the foreign country any money expended by the United States Government under this Bill because of the seizure of a United States vessel by such country. Once again, however, utmost flexibility in the conduct of foreign affairs is retained by the Executive by instructing the Secretary of State to take only such actions as he may deem appropriate to make and collect such claims, without any specification as to time or other condition. ** it is expected that in all cases where owners are reimbursed for fines paid to secure release of vessels and crews seized under asserted foreign claims, the United States will aggressively seek restitution of such amounts from the foreign countries involved. I am informed and believe that the United States has not collected any claims from any foreign country since the enactment of the act. For this reason alone, I am completely sympathetic with the intent of section 5 of H.R. 4451 and H.R. 4452. Other proposals have been made to assist the collection of the amounts paid under the act. For instance, H.R. 7602, 88th Congress, first session, introduced by Congressman "Bob" Wilson of California on July 16, 1963, which called for the withholding each fiscal year, out of foreign aid funds, of $200,000 from each country which has at any time during the preceding year wrongfully seized, inspected, detained U.S. vessels in international waters or that compel U.S. vessels to purchase licenses to fish or engage in commerce in international waters. Essentially, H.R. 7602 proposed that payments made by the United States to nations that attempt to enforce a claim of sovereignty in the world's oceans in defiance to recognized international law be reduced by the amount they extract from the U.S. fishing industry. In this connection, the following represents my latest information concerning total U.S. assistance to Ecuador, Panama, and Peru through the Alliance for Progress for the period 1961-66 in U.S. dollars. (NOTE.-Unidentified portion of $89,800,000 by the U.S. AID Regional Office for Central America and Panama. And an unidentified part of $606,300,000, which the United States contributed to the IADB fund and others, should be included in this list.) Mr. FELANDO. The above compilation does not include the amounts given to these three countries in the form of military assistance. But, we do know that both Ecuador and Peru received considerable aid. As indicated by the affidavits of Tom Santos, master of the M/V Ronnie S., and John Cvitanich, master of the M/V Determined, Ecuador recently received gifts of modern warships from the United States. In addition, the Ecuadorian crews that participated in the seizures of these two tuna clippers in February 1967, had just completed a 6-month training tour in the United States. Congressman Tom Pelly pointed out in his remarks on the floor of the House on March 22, 1967-Congressional Record-page H3193, as follows: To make matters worse, United States Naval vessels supplied to our neighbors in South America under our military assistance program have been used in making these illegal seizures. Furthermore, this use of those United States Naval vessels, I am informed by the United States State Department, does not conform to our agreed purpose in making these vessels available. *** United States vessels on loan to the South American countries under military assistance programs: Peru: Two destroyers. Not included in the above is: $1,196,000.00 in boats provided Ecuador which are smaller than destroyers. ... For use by this subcommittee, I have photographs and slides of the vessels and aircraft used by Peru and Ecuador against our tuna clippers. Based upon a report printed in the Congressional Record, July 20, 1966, pages 15726-15728, Ecuador has received $42.2 million in military grants; Panama, $1.6 million in military loans; and Peru, $106.6 million in military grants and $18.9 million in military loans during the period 1946-65. I would like to discuss the background of the bill. BACKGROUND OF THE BILL We strongly support the objectives of the proposed bills before this subcommittee, because a proper amendment of the reimbursement aspect of the U.S. Vessel Protective Act will prevent a reluctance on the part of the U.S. high seas fishing fleets to participate in those fisheries of the high seas where jurisdictional claims are made and enforced by warships and aircraft by foreign countries contrary to international law. Article 2 of the Convention on the High Seas-Law of the Sea Convention, No. II, April 29, 1958-states as follows: The high seas being open to all nations, no State may validly purport to subject any part of them to its sovereignty. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by these articles and by other rules of international law. It compromises, inter alia, both for coastal and non-coastal States: 1. Freedom of navigation 2. Freedom of fishing 3. Freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines 4. Freedom to fly over the high seas. These freedoms, and others which are recognized by the general principles of international law shall be exercised by all States with reasonable regard to the interests of other States in the exercise of the freedom of the high seas. This convention entered into force September 30, 1962, and it was ratified by the President of the United States, March 24, 1961, and proclaimed by him on November 9, 1962. As of September 1, 1966, 38 countries have ratified this Convention; 22 ratifications were necessary to bring it into force. This Convention clearly establishes the fact that U.S. fishermen operating on the high seas do not do so under any right which pertains to them individually. Such freedom to fish on the high seas pertains only to sovereign countries and therefore, to the United States of America. The extent to which U.S. citizens can exercise their freedom to fish on the high seas is subject to the action taken by the U.S. Government. If a U.S. fisherman has his freedom to fish on the high seas interfered with or denied, his only recourse is to seek relief from the U.S. Government. Only a sovereign state can defend its rights as declared by the Convention on the High Seas and international law against another sovereign State. Thus, to grant the protection that is required under the U.S. Vessel Protective Act, is also to establish a most effective means of asserting the doctrine of freedom of the high seas. For there is no better way of establishing the freedom to fish on the high seas than to actively exercise such freedom in a proper and rational harvest of the resources of the high seas. In order to exercise the freedom to fish on the high seas off Latin America, it is essential that the U.S. Vessel Protective Act be amended so as to provide an adequate and equitable reimbursement of all costs and losses directly resulting from an unlawful seizure and detention. The members of our association must be assured of a measure of protection against economic loss if the United States continues to assert that its citizens have the freedom to fish the high seas. As the attached tables indicate, the costs and losses since 1961 have not been inconsiderable. Such total expense does not include the thousands of dollars that were expended by U.S. fishermen to Ecuador and Peru for purposes of avoiding seizures and risk of harm to person and prop erty. The affidavits establishing this practice are before you in exhibit D. The affidavits establish it abundantly. According to a tabulation provided by the Department of State, 96 nations in the United Nations system have asserted their positions concerning the breadth of territorial sea and fishing jurisdiction. Only Guinea in Africa claims limits beyond 12 miles; only Korea claims limits beyond 12 miles in East Asia and Pacific: no nation in Europe or North America claims limits beyond 12 miles; and only India claims limits beyond 12 miles in South Asia and the Near East. In South and Central America and in the Caribbean, there are eight countries that claim limits beyond 12 miles; namely, Argentina, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, and Peru. And yet, only two countries have been actively using force to assert, maintain, and substantiate their claims. These are Ecuador and Peru. Panama has announced intentions to actively search out and seize our vessels. Since 1961, fishing vessels of the United States, Japan, Canada, and Mexico have been seized by warships of Peru and Ecuador. As table 1 indicates, better than 50 percent of the vessels in the U.S. tuna clipper fleet have been either chased, seized, shot at, or harassed since 1961. In our opinion, the present Government of Ecuador and Pern are deliberately obstructing attempts by the world to live by rule of law rather than by rule of force in matters of the law of the sea. Proof comes from their flagrant use of warships and aircraft to enforce a claim of sovereignty in conflict with the report expressed by the International Law Commission, with international agreements manifested by the 1958 Geneva Law of the Sea Conventions, and with the conduct of almost all coastal nations. Such defiance creates problems of respect for rule by international law and for resolution of difficulties through procedures established by the United Nations. Further, the enforcement of the doctrines claimed by Peru and Ecuador requires actions that necessarily result in confrontations between sovereigns, if not today, then tomorrow, thereby stimulating conflict between nations. In short, Peru and Ecuador, in asserting and enforcing the 200-mile doctrine, represent a form of intervention by force of arms upon the collective sovereignty of all nations as that sovereignty is recognized on the high seas. As was stated during the House hearings on the act of August 27, 1954: It will be the right of the United States, under international law, and not that of the individual fisherman, which is being tested. The only means the United States has, in practice, to maintain these rights is to continue their exercise by its fishermen. Unless the owners of these vessels can be assured of the protection of their government and the acceptance by their government of a share of the economic risk of exercising such rights, they cannot continue to take the risk of sending their vessels into such waters. Unless, on the other hand, they do continue to fish in the challenged waters, these rights of the United States will stand in danger of being atrophied and lost. (Page 23.) Mr. FELANDO. We strongly support the amendment of the act of August 27, 1954, as contained in H.R. 4451, subject to the changes mentioned above. We are hopeful that the subcommittee will report it favorably for passage at this session of Congress. I appreciate the time that the committee has allowed me. Mr. PELLY. I certainly want to congratulate Mr. Felando for having documented a very strong case. I know, obviously, that so far as your association is concerned you are looking toward reimbursement of its members. You are trying not to concern yourself with foreign policy or any means by which our Government might obtain reimbursement. Is that correct? Mr. FELANDO. I feel that this is the responsibility of Congress and certainly Congress has acted in this act. I think this involves a discussion between the members of this subcommittee and the representatives of the Department of State in this area. Mr. PELLY. It is true that the captain of the Ronnie S. after his boat had been seized by a modern patrol craft similar to our Coast Guard cutters, went over to the deck and looked down and saw-a builder's plate with the inscription-"built in Wisconsin in 1966"? Mr. FELANDO. Yes, he went aboard. Mr. PELLY. And isn't it also true that the captain of that Ecuadoran cutter was furious to find out that the fishing boat, the Ronnie S. had a better radar than the United States had given them on this former Coast Guard vessel so that the Ronnie S was able to ascertain that it was off Peru and not off Ecuador? Mr. FELANDO. That is correct, and from what I understand the Ecuadoran Navy then requested assistance from the U.S. Government to acquire better radar, longer distance radar so as to exchange the shorter distance radar that was given to them. Mr. PELLY. In general can it be said that these Latin American countries have very fast boats with which to apprehend our fishing vessels outside the 12-mile limit on the high seas and that once having seized our vessels and forced them at gunpoint into port the crew is losing money which otherwise could be earned if the vessel could engage in fishing instead of being forced to take a great deal of time off to go into port because of such harassing seizures and fines? Mr. FELANDO. That is correct. Mr. PELLY. I think the point raised by you, Mr. Dow, is that the fines are paid by our Government and therefore the crew doesn't lose anything. However, it seems that just the opposite is true, since they get no reimbursement whatsoever for their lost time or for other expenses of the voyage, including what I would call illegal licenses which they are forced to buy. These acts are not only hitting the vessel owners but the members of the crew as well. Mr. FELANDO. I might add that in addition, roughly every time a vessel is seized and taken into port there are additional costs in port and they range from about $600 to $1,000 and all port costs. Sometimes you have to pay for a fish inspector's fee or port clearance. So that, in addition to the fine you have the license fees, the port costs. The port costs and the license fees are trip expenses and of course that goes to reduce the net share that is divided between the vessel and crew. The subject of fines is a total responsibility of the vessel owner. Mr. PELLY. In your testimony you cited some remarks that I made on the floor of the House. At that time I was told by the Coast Guard that they were not permitted to give a list of all the vessels of one kind or another that they turned over to Equador. Later I did obtain that information and it appears elsewhere under other remarks that I made. It is a very lengthy list. We have actually been supply |