claimed sovereignty not only to the shelf but to all the resources above the shelf. The Continental Shelf off Chile is very narrow, similar to the type off California. So they claimed a zone 200 miles off their coast and claimed complete sovereignty. This was shortly followed unilaterally by Peru and Ecuador and other nations. Then Peru, Ecuador, and Chile jointly agreed among themselves that they would make this claim of exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty to an area off their coasts of no less than 200 miles. So actually their claim is a minimum of 200 miles.

The United States protested each of these unilateral actions saying that they had misinterpreted the Truman proclamation, that sovereignty was limited to the Continental Shelf. The other theory that they talk about is the Bioma theory, saying that there is a sort of physical connection with adjacent coasts and the nearby environment. Those are the two basic thoughts that I have heard expressed.

Mr. MORTON. I certainly thank you. I think you have thrown a great deal of light on this subject.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Everett.

Mr. EVERETT. Just one or two questions.

Who actually pays the fine when a vessel is seized?

Mr. FELANDO. The vessel's owner.

Mr. EVERETT. Is it paid through the State Department or by the vessel owner?

Mr. FELANDO. By the vessel owner.

Mr. EVERETT. Based on seizures in the past, how long does it take to get reimbursement from the State Department?

Mr. FELANDO. I have tabulated this in a chart. We still have some claims for the seizures which occurred in May 1966. We are still waiting certification of these claims.

To give you some illustrations, it has varied. Some seizures that occurred this year obtained a quick certification. They were fortunate after the certification to be included in the appropriation bill and within 4 or 5 months they were paid. Other claims have taken as long as a year and a half. It is hard to give out with an average, but I would say close to a year.

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you.

One final question: What would be the cost of this legislation if one of these bills being considered today was enacted?

I know you would have to project prospective seizures that may occur in the future to determine the actual cost of this legislation; nevertheless, we would like to have at least an estimate based on past seizures.

Mr. FELANDO. Of course, idle time depends on the ability of the State Department to move quickly for the prompt release of the vessel and the reduction of the total idle time would have a significant impact on the cost, but I will try to work up something in this area for you, 1 Mr. Everett.

Mr. EVERETT. I would appreciate if you would supply that for the record.

Estimated annual cost of the amendment of the act of August 27, 1954, as proposed by bill H.R. 4451 and related bills, limited to the U.S. tuna fishery

Item 1:

Cost of fines, license fees, registration fees, and other direct
charges

Item 2:

$252, 000

Cost of loss, damage or destruction of vessel, its tackle, gear, etc.,
and all fish taken and retained---.

10, 000

Item 3:

Cost of enforced idleness-based upon 50 percent of the estimated
value of fish not caught during the period of seizure and
detention

75, 600

Total annual cost.

337, 600

NOTES

Item 1: Assuming 18 seizures, at a cost of $14,000 per seizure for fine, license fees, registrations fees, etc.

Item 2: This estimate is based upon incidents in the past, cost is limited to damaged or converted property. An estimate on tuna taken or retained would be, as of this date, highly speculative.

Item 3: Assuming 18 seizures, with average detention period of 4 days, with costs at approximately $1,050 per day.

The above estimates are based upon the relief that the United States Government will be able to reduce the annual number of seizures and the length of time involved during the detention periods. Further, that the Government will be able to limit the penalties imposed to Fines, etc. as distingushed from confiscation of vessel or cargo.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a remarkable witness. His information has been amazing as far as the background of the whole problem. I think it has added a great deal to our record. Mr. FELANDO. Thank you very much.

Mr. DINGELL. I think it has been very helpful to the committee. Mr. Felando, do you indicate on page 6 of your statement here that you have not supported legislation to compensate injured fishermen or their heirs or legal representation because it would cause complications and would require such lengthy amendments as to cause difficulty in passage of any legislation? Why do you make that statement, sir?

Mr. FELANDO. Because the information that I received by or through representatives of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and congressional administrative assistants. They advised me that there would have to be such lengthy language involved in the bill that this would cause problems. They made reference to, for instance, that something like the provisions of the Longshoremen's Act would have to be incorporated in the bill.

This is what basically I was advised, that this was an extremely complicated area.

Mr. DINGELL. You don't support, however, the payment of loss of catch?

Mr. FELANDO. Yes.

Mr. DINGELL. Why would that be any more easy to legislate than the question of loss of limb, injury, or death to an American seaman? Mr. FELANDO. I don't think the argument is based on the determination of the cost or the loss. What I was told was that the complicated legal language that would have to be incorporated in the bill would be the difficulty. In fact, after what hapepned on the Mayflower and based

on what knowledge I had of William Peck where he was permanently damaged, I have complete sympathies. I have a brother who is out there fishing. I am in complete sympathy with the idea but this is what information I have.

Mr. DINGELL. You are aware of the fact that H.R. 4451 and 4452 and 9015 all contain this language in them?

Mr. FELANDO. Yes.

Mr. DINGELL. Do you feel that the language in that legislation should be removed?

Mr. FELANDO. My position would be if there is some way that it could be satisfactorily incorporated to the satisfaction of Congress, I am in complete support of the whole idea. 1 am merely stating that this was the advice that I had.

Mr. DINGELL. I see. Thank you very much for your testimony this morning.

Mr. FELANDO. Thank you.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Carry, do you have something?

Mr. CARRY. I wanted to say just a few things, very briefly, Mr. Chairman.

If you want to adjourn, I can come back this afternoon or some other time.

Mr. DINGELL. We have other witnesses to hear this afternoon. The Chair would be happy to hear you now.

Mr. CARRY. I don't want to delay you unduly.

My name is Charles R. Carry, and I represent the Tuna Research Foundation, a trade association representing about 80 percent of the canned tuna production in the United States. Among my members are several who have ownership interests in boats in addition to the boats in the American Tunaboat Association, and they, too, support this particular type of legislation.

Again, we have no particular opinion as to which of the several bills is the best bill or the one that should be taken up by the committee. We think that is up to the wisdom of the committee. We certainly want to get all the compensation and all the reimbursement for loss that it is possible to obtain, in the wisdom of Congress.

One point I wanted to make is that there is a feeling that if the industry, the boatowners and the fishermen are fully reimbursed for all their losses, there will be a temptation, perhaps, for boats during periods of poor fishing to subject themselves to seizures. Anybody that knows anything about the business will know that this is utterly ridiculous because no master and no crewmember will deliberately take a chance on having a seizure of a million-dollar vessel-and that is what these boats are worth nowadays-just because he has a few days of poor fishing.

If he can't find fish in one area, he is going to go to another area and will find fish there. The tuna fishery is not totally a seasonal fishery. It is seasonal in certain areas, but there is always some area during some part of the year where you can find tuna so that nobody will subject themselves to any such seizures and the attendant risk of confiscation.

Another point I would like to make is, in fact, for Mr. Pelly's benefit. Mr. Pelly we don't want you to be too harsh on the people in the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries because we got a little informa

tion yesterday. Normally in the course of a hearing like this the Government witnesses come first, and we have an opportunity to hear what they are proposing and can react to it.

In this particular case you were kind enough to hear us first. So the Government people, after they sent the material up here, by the way, told us in general what they were intending to propose this afternoon, and that is why Mr. Felando referred to it.

Mr. PELLY. I am objecting to the fact that we didn't get this information this morning. I wanted it myself. However, one of the great constitutional privileges of the Members of Congress is to complain about the way that members of the executive branch carry out their duties. We sometimes feel they don't give us enough information, or they don't treat us in the way we feel we should be treated. This is just a case of members of the great official family of Government having a little good clean fun.

Mr. CARRY. In this case I think it was an attempt on their part to be fully cooperative with you and with us because they wanted us to be able to react somewhat to what they are likely to propose and since we only heard about it very late yesterday afternoon, after 5 o'clock I might add, we have not had a chance to consider very fully the proposals that they will make, but in general they seem to be satisfactory

to us.

Mr. PELLY. It's like women. We just couldn't get along without them. The same is true with the members of the executive branch. They are people we respect and admire, and like members of one great family we often criticize them, but we don't want anybody else to criticize them.

Mr. CARRY. I would like to comment on the response to a question Mr. Morton raised before about whether there had been any dialog between industry people and people in these other countries. I can say that I personally did engage in such dialog at one time primarily in connection with the attempt to get Peru to cooperate with the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission in its conservation program. We felt that if we could get Peru to cooperate in that program, we would be eliminating some of the basis for what we consider their unreasonable 200-mile claim.

I personally went to Lima and talked to people in our own embassy and with industry people in Lima. I did not talk to Peruvian Government officials on the advice of our own embassy, however. I talked to industry people and attempted to get them to persuade the Government to join in the work of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Com

mission.

I might add I was most unsuccessful.

Mr. DINGELL. Apparently we have been blessed with very little success in this whole matter.

Gentlemen, the Chair is indeed grateful to you both for your presence today.

The committee will reconvene at 2 o'clock. We are faced with the problem that certain portions of the testimony today will necessarily not be available to the public. The Chair is going to instruct the staff to work out with the Departments appropriate arrangements for clearing as much of the testimony as possible as soon as it

is possible to be done, so that it will be available to the industry for comment hopefully previous to the time the printed record is available so that you may submit such comments with regard to the testimony received this afternoon as you would feel appropriate in order to give you full opportunity to be heard on all matters.

The Chair also will try insofar as possible to open the hearings as much as possible to the public on conclusion of that portion which the agencies wish to have in closed session so that it may well be that you gentlemen from industry will choose to remain handy and perhaps we will be able to open it so you may hear some of the testimony.

Mr. CARRY. Thank you.

Mr. FELANDO. Thank you.

Mr. DINGELL. We will fix the order of hearing this afternoon to be Mr. McKernan, and then Mr. Crowther, Director of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, and finally Lieutenant Commander Blondin, of the fisheries patrol of the U.S. Coast Guard, who will be standing by to answer questions.

Gentlemen, that is the program for this afternoon. The subcommittee will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene in executive session at 2 p.m., the same day.)