which is in the municipality of Richmond, a suburb of Greater Vancouver, to a few miles south of Bandon in southwestern Oregon, perhaps 900 miles as the crow or airplane would fly, much more by road. This is a lot of territory to cover in the short time we alloted for the visit.

INFORMATION SOURCES

lumber conveyors, sawmills belch smoke. This is still, in some respects, primitive, pioneering country.

tain many beautiful woods in exterior and interior finish. Private dwellings, I was told, are cheaper to build out there. They are nearer the source of supply of these woods.

There has never been a survey of Lulu Island cranberry growing that I am aware of, and I am not attempting a real survey of this unique area, which was our first point of

call.

COAST VERY DIFFERENT

The whole coast is different than other cranberry-growing areas. For instance, you cannot stand on a cranberry_bog in Massachusetts or New Jersey or Wisconsin and

look up at snow-clad mountains, as you can at Lulu on a clear day, seeing the peaks of the high Canadian mountains. You see these when you look to the north and also the mountains of vast Vancouver Island 30 miles out in the Pacific. In no other bog can you see the high towers of a huge city, Vancouver. I know of no other place where you walk upon bog dikes topped with sawdust and sawmill leavings, as here lumber is still king.

The "Alpine" peaks of the Olympics are not far from the bogs of Grayland, Wash. At Grayland, nearly the entire cranberry production is from a single vast peat bog, in a swale between the coastal sand dunes, and there each grower has his own piece of bog, divided from his neighbor by a ditch only.

Long Beach area, Washington, is the most homelike to eastern eyes. In fact, the Long Beach Peninsula, 28 miles of continuous beach, is called the "longest beach in the world," and the sand is so hard packed that automobiles run up and down it; there are dunes of sand, and it has been called "the Cape Cod of the West."

Lulu Island is approximately at the 50th parallel of north latitude and is north of the bogs of Nova Scotia. At Bandon, Oreg., which is at about the same latitude as Cape May in New Jersey, you see palm and bamboo (imported) growing, thousands of wild rhododendrons, very beautiful. Snow is an extreme rarity. All of the Pacific Northwest is warmed by the Japanese current, which cuts in sharply. Much of the vegetation is extremely lush, and may be described as all but subtropical. Winters in the Pacific Northwest are extremely rainy, the greatest rainfall in the United States being in the Olympic Mountains, not very far from Grayland. Summers are dry and often almost cool at times.

FLOWERS BLOOM AT CHRISTMAS

The flowers are still in bloom at Christmas, spring flowers (and weeds) appear much earlier than in other cranberry areas; the blooming period for cranberries is much longer; the crop is picked later, extending generally into November.

In the Pacific Northwest the trees tower mightily into the sky, Douglas fir and spruce, even though much land has been timbered off. Logging, however, continues at a great clip; log booms are to be seen in nearly every estuary, great tree butts, more than a yard in diameter roll along the highways in huge

CIX-1343

Also electric power rates are much lower, so that about every house is completely electrified, from electric coffee pot, to electric heating. They also do not have cellars. Much glass is used and unusual woods from the Orient also a nearer supply source, than on the east coast. Again, many of the cranberry men build their homes with their own ingenuity and labor. I was told by one such cranberryman, "We get an idea of what we want, the kind of house and the kind of arrangement of everything in it. We do not

hire an architect, we just go along working out of our heads."

magnificant, modern home of Mr. and Mrs. Likely, the most impressive of these is the Frank O. Glenn, of amazing Cranguyma Farms, at Long Beach. Cranguyma will be taken up in a later article.

BOGS ON HILLS

To get back more specifically to cranberry growing, some bogs in the Bandon area are built on hills and on hillsides, not on flats. One bog, about 3 miles from the Pacific is on a hilltop about 300 feet high. A number of the Bandon area growers terrace their bogs, that is each section is lower than the next one. Water is scarce in the summer. This terracing enables the grower to drop water down from level to level for reuse, in

the water-reel harvesting, which is the principal harvest method. Incidentally, some Oregon growers think it is ridiculous for east coast growers to harvest dry, and to lose 20 percent or more of the crop.

Of course, as has been published in previous issues of Cranberries magazine, New Jersey has gone in largely for water-reel harvest the past year or two. In Massachusetts last year (notably by David Mann, Head-ofBay Road, Buzzards Bay) extensively tried out water raking, but in the Wisconsin method (by "mechanical scoops," Dana-Getsinger picking machines). Dr. Chester E. Cross, director of Massachusetts Cranberry Experiment Station has harvested, experimentally at the State bog, by both the Wisconsin picker and the water-reel method, and has urged such wet harvest methods be attempted by more Massachusetts growers. The program and much of the pioneering work in these wet methods has been done through the mechanical ability of Prof. John "Stan" Norton, station researcher in engineering.

The foregoing should not give the false impression that all west coast crops are harvested entirely by wet methods. The Grayland area which has the larger Washington acreage and more production, picks entirely by dry raking, with either the Western Picker, Darlington or the Furford Picker, a Grayland-developed machine. There is only one small exception to this in the Grayland area. Lulu Island also harvests dry.

DIKES OF ALUMINUM

Bandon, also seems to be pioneering in a new type of enclosures for the harvest sections. These are dikes made of aluminum, and not of earth or wood. After use in each section, water is released to another through small gates, as, of course, is done to different beds of sections in other cranberry areas. These dikes can be in straight lines or curved.

Many bogs on the coast do not have margin ditches, again different from in the East. Ditches often have boarded sides and sometimes also boarded tops, in both margin and cross ditches. In marginal ditches these boards retain earth material and also help prevent bog side weeds from spreading onto the bogs. Also, in the other areas not many bog railways are used. Grayland is a notable example of the use of railways.

More details on all these west coast practices, including the use of aluminum dikes will appear in following articles.

All along the cranberry areas there flares the brilliant yellow of the Scotch Broom and the Irish Fruz, the latter a distinct fire menace. This gorse contributed to the almost total destruction by a great forest fire in 1938 of the city of Bandon, with some loss of life. (Only last month a windwhipped gorse fire badly damaged a Bandon home, a fire in which the owner was injured.) However, this gorse in its prolificness and its striking color along the highways and in the fields, is a feature of the

Pacific Northwest. Also if there are not mountains, such as the low coastal range

through Oregon, there are hills to be seen from the bogs, or near the bogs.

SCENERY POWERFUL

This is not the familiar landscape of the east, nor of Wisconsin. To me the scenery is so powerful, that it is a bit distracting, making it difficult to keep the mind on the details of cranberry growing. Everything is different and interesting.

There is no bog, that I know of, where a hundred or more peacocks strut and scream about the shore except at Cranguyma. These birds serve no practical purpose. At the Big Red Cranberry Co., Ltd. at Lulu hand weeders. When cranberry bogs were there are employed gangs of Chinese women first built at Long Beach, Wash., Chinese

labor was employed. The Chinese women weeders at Big Red are said to be most industrious and do clean up the weedy areas.

To "get down to cases," in 1961, Washington produced 139,000 barrels, the high production of the Evergreen State. Oregon in 1961 produced 45,400 barrels, last year 34,000; Washington 55,000 but 1962 was an "off year," as far as the coast was concerned. Growing conditions simply were not right. And, then on Columbus Day came "Freda," which was possibly a typhoon with winds exceeding 150 miles on hour, similar in destruction to the hurricanes which have swept the cranberry areas of Massachusetts and New Jersey.

Berries, boomed by the water reel method, were blown right out of the bogs and the vines were piled with the debris of fallen shrubs and trees. Millions of board feet of timber were blown down, and today traces of "Freda" are still in evidence.

Of the 1961 production, Washington sold 115,800 barrels as processed fruit and fresh, 23,200; Oregon 20,200 processed and fresh 6,100 (USDA figures). All berries sold of the Washington crop were produced in the Grayland area. I do not yet have figures as to processed and fresh Oregon sales for the 1962 crop, but expect to have in subsequent articles.

MORE SOLD FRESH

Right here, it should be said that west coast growers are striving to increase quality and want to have a larger proportion of production go fresh. It might seem this could be accomplished this fall with the new cooler storage room at the Ocean Spray plant at Markham, Wash., where all west coast berries eventually wind up.

To get back to the growth of the cranberry growing on the Pacific coast; in 1924 west coast acreage (USDA figure) both Washington and Oregon was 570 and production was 14,000 barrels; even then barrels per acre

were 24.6, with the U.S. average 22.2. By 1940 acreage had increased to 840 with production to 27,000 barrels per acre that year were 44.6, below the U.S. average of 48.4.

By 1950 the acreage was 1,090, production 47,700; average production on the coast per acre, 42.2. In the decade of the 1950's, Washington production average was 62,400 and that of Oregon 32,490.

Latest figures (1962) for harvested acreage shows Washington has 1,100 acres and Oregon 560. Of this Washington acreage the Long Beach area has about 400 acres; Grayland about 600, while the so-called and relatively newer North Beach has something less than 100. (These figures were provided by the Coastal Washington Experiment Station at Long Beach.) Of production the Long Beach area produced 35 to 40 percent, while the balance is grown in Grayland and

the North Beach district.

As to acreage, or production there seem to be no official figures for Lulu Island. However, the Big Red, operated by the "Three Yanks" from Carver, Mass., "Norm" Holmes, "Fritz" Shaw and "Jimmy" Thomas, who migrated to Canada in 1954 (and about whom and their holding more will appear later) has 106 acres in vines. North American Peat Co., Ltd. has about 18 acres of new bog; Bell Farms, Ltd. has 67 in vines; Shaw has 3 of his own, Thomas Yardley, a veteran grower of Lulu has about 4. Several others have what they call home or back yard bogs of a few rods. Total at Lulu is therefore figured at about 175 acres. Production has not yet exceeded 5,000 barrels.

Most of the Lulu growers, and all the larger ones sell through Ocean Spray Cranberries, Ltd. of Canada, a subsidiary of Ocean Spray, and they are therefore not direct stockholders of the big U.S. co-op.

Some additional acreage is going in, and there is very abundant cranberry land potential. Consequently, production could be substantial. So far, there have been frosts or other adverse weather conditions, but, I was told "this could be the year," which, of course, is the hope of all who grow a crop of any kind.

MOST COAST GROWERS SMALL

These west coast growers with a few exceptions are growers with small holdings; the exceptions being the two big bogs at Lulu, Cranguyma, at Long Beach, and the Dellinger bog in Clatsop County, Oreg.

Figures compiled by Mrs. Irene Hollingsworth, secretary at the Markham plant, assisted by Superintendent Wilho Ross and Mrs. Maude O'Brien, show that present production per bog is approximately 350 barrels at Grayland and 714 at Long Beach. This discrepancy is explained by the fact that Chandler in his Washington survey found that "the relative size of holdings, (in Washington) may be expressed in the statement that Long Beach has 17 percent of the growers and 39 percent of the planted cranberry land, Grayland has 83 percent of the growers and 61 percent of the land," which means that Long Beach holdings are generally larger. Situation has not changed too much since then.

While this may be disputed, it seems probable that Grayland growers on the average, produce more to the acre than do those of Long Beach district.

In regard to Oregon, Chandler found that 59 percent of the growers had 3 acres or less and 77 percent had 4 or less and only 17 percent had more than 5 acres.

GROWERS HAVE OTHER INCOMES

A large majority of the growers of both Washington and Oregon need other sources of income than cranberry growing. Some work at logging, some work in sawmills, a number go salmon fishing in season, many cater to the thriving summer tourist trade at Grayland, Long Beach, and Bandon.

With the high acreage production it is felt that 15 or maybe even 12 acres would make bog holdings, wholly self-sustaining for a grower. With the few exceptions already noted, only a handful own as much as 18 acres today.

In all areas there is now a definite move

ment among the more progressive to consolidate holdings, especially at Grayland, to acquire more pieces of bog, even though they do not adjourn on the single, vast peat swale. This is going on also at Long Beach and at Bandon, where some new bog is being put in. Actually, a little new acreage is being put in, in at all areas-more than is being abandoned.

FEWER GROWERS

In most cranberry areas, as is true in all farming, the number of growers is tending to be fewer, but each grower with larger holdings. On the first visit in 1944 the best estimate obtainable as to the number of growers was about 250 on the entire coast. Chandler in his 1956-57 surveys receives replies to questionnaires from 227 growers in Washington and in Oregon contacted 142, for a total of 379. The Cranberry Institute in 1962 for the referendum on the marketing order had a total of 340, in Washington 205 and 135 in Oregon.

Thus it would seem growers increased in numbers from the forties to midfifties, but have slightly decreased since. More exact figures may be expected as their series goes along.

LITTLE AIR CONTROL

There is very little application of chemicals from the air on the coast, but some, which is unlike the east coast. Wisconsin uses ground applications. Unlike the East and Wisconsin, with mild winters, there is no appreciable ice forming on bogs, and not much winter flooding although there is some.

The west coast is relatively new to cranberry culture, and this beginning requires only mention here, as most of it has been published in this magazine before and will be reviewed later in the regional articles. The first planting west of the Rockies was in Oregon in 1885 by Charles Dexter McFarlin, of Carver, Mass. The second was a little later on the Long Beach Peninsula by a French gardener, Anthony Chabot. These first plantings were established, as is apparent, long after cranberry growing had become an industry of some import in Massachusetts and New Jersey, and the first known cultivated cranberry planting in Wisconsin was in the 1850's.

NOTABLE COAST CONTRIBUTIONS

Yet, the west coast had made several notable contributions to cranberry growing. One was the development of the first mechanical picker, near Bandon, principally by the late Joe Stankovich. This mechanical harvester was developed into the Western Picker and Rudy Hillstrom came East to introduce it; it came into wide use, and changed the harvesting of cranberries from the manual scoop to mechanical harvest, as revolutionary as had been the earlier scoop over the snap machine and hand harvest.

It was in the Bandon area, by Summer Fish and others, that the water reel was devised, and its use is spreading today.

First use of sprinkler systems for cranberries, appears to have been a Long Beach, Wash., development. Their use was pioneered in the 1920's by D. J. Crowley, then director of the Washington Cranberry and Blueberry Station. Since then use of sprinklers in

It might be surmised that the use of the aluminum dikes, developed in the Bandon area, as a means of dividing bogs for waterharvest, may spread, if the wet harvesting method continues to increase as is now the trend.

M'FARLINS PREDOMINATE

Nearly all of the entire west coast plantings are McFarlins, although there are a few eastern Howes, Early Blacks, and some Searls from Wisconsin. It was interesting to be informed several times that California people when buying fresh cranberries prefer what they call "the big, red cranberries."

Each cranberry area has its own growers' association, even to Lulu Island, a Grayland Cranberry Association, Long Beach Cranberry Club and Southwestern Oregon Cranberry Club.

WEST COAST ADVISORY BOARD

This might be a good place to insert mention of the West Coast Advisory Board. Each area on the coast (but not in Canada) has its own elected group with membership on the board. This unit was formed back in the 1940's when Ocean Spray "went west." The board in actuality acts as a "go-between" of west coast Ocean Spray directors and the cranberry growers. Growers may suggest their own ideas to the two directors, David Pryde of Grayland and Jimmy Olson of Bandon. These present the ideas, presumably if they are deemed worthy, at the several yearly meetings of Ocean Spray directors at Hanson. There they may be discussed.

Upon returning the directors disseminate what information they have ascertained at the meetings, not only in regard to west coast suggestions, but what has taken place in general at the meeting of the directors. In other words, west coast growers have a direct pipeline to the entire board of directors and as to what the plans of the board are. Cecil Richards, vice president of the Grayland board firmly believes and suggests that this would be a good idea for Ocean Spray members in other cranberry areas to adopt.

Last month Howard "Pete" Hull of the Bandon area was elected president of the west coast board, at the seimannual meeting, held this time at Bandon. Mr. Richards was named vice president of the board.

GROWERS NOT DISCOURAGED

One factor of the visit seemed impressive. This was that none, or few of the growers, talked with really seemed discouraged with the future of cranberry growing. Were they satisfied with the returns they are receiving: Of course not. Yet the talk was mostly of how they planned to improve their bogs, increase production per acre, and of getting a little more acreage, either through building, or by acquiring acreage already built, as property became available to buy.

NO WEST COAST "BOOM" IN SIGHT Need the other cranberry areas "worry" because of a sudden big spurt in west coast production? It would seem not, immediately. There may come a year when all conditions are favorable and production will zoom as in 1961.

Otherwise, it would seem there may be a little increase in production per acre, a little increase each year in total production. No big amounts of acreage are likely to be put in, as in all cranberry areas, until cranberry returns to growers become better, this seems true with the exception of Wisconsin where there is an almost steady increase of a hundred or so acres every year.

A word of appreciation to those who especially helped us most on the coast: Wilho Ross, and Mrs. Irene Hollingsworth of Markham plant; "Norm" Holmes at Vancouver;

David Pryde at Grayland, also Cecil Richards and John R. O'Hagan; to D. J. Crowley at Long Beach and Dr. Charles C. Doughty and

Mrs. Aloha Gustafson of the experiment station, to Mr. Glenn, and in the Bandon area

to Ray Bates, Jimmy Olson, and Jack Dean.

TRIED TO BE CRANBERRY MISSIONARIES

Finally, on this trip we tried to be good cranberry missionaries. In casual talk with people at railroad, bus, and air terminals, on trains, etc., we would fall into casual conversation as people do. When we mentioned cranberries there seemed to be only a little remembering of the "cranberry scare" of 1959, but still something vaguely "connected with cancer." We asked for a cranberry product at eating places, we got cranberries only once, on a Santa Fe railway diner, and this was sauce, served with-you guessed it, poultry, in this case roast turkey.

Also, at the mention of cranberries to many, it rang a bell-"Ocean Spray, oh, I've heard of that," when we had only mentioned cranberries.

If this article sounds "too much Ocean Spray," it is not so intended, but the fact remains about 83 percent of the industry is Ocean Spray and among west coast growers the percentage is not more than a hair below 100 percent. And, as regards the name Ocean Spray being well-known Ocean Spray

does do a lot of national advertising.

Future articles, as stated, will take up area by area and individual growers and properties and others with west coast cranberry interests. There may be a little repetition of fact but only enough to maintain the continuity of each article.

HOW IS THE NEW PEACE THROUGH GREED PROGRAM ACTUALLY WORKING?

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, ever since President Kennedy, by executive action and over the protests of many Senators and Congressmen, switched our cold war policy from one of curtailing trade with Communist countries to one of trading with the enemy and giving aid and comfort to those who would bury us, the repercussions of the socalled wheat for Communists deal have been increasingly sour and disturbing. As predicted at the time, this was notrepeat not a one-shot deal. It was, instead, the forerunner of more and even more distasteful and disillusioning concessions to the Communists. It appears appeasement is again to dominate our attitudes toward Khrushchev and his fellow Communist overlords and dictators.

Using sarcasm and cynicism, Arthur Hoppe in the Washington Evening Star pins the label of "Peace Through Greed" on this new twist in our ever-changing but never-consistent foreign policy. First, we were to sell the wheat only for cash and it was to be shipped in American bottoms with American seamen with no subsidy from the Government and no concessions to the low wage rates of Communist ships. Now, we hear our Government is to guarantee credit sales to the Communists. Ways are being sought to beat down the wages of American seamen or to have American taxpayers subsidize the low-cost delivery of wheat to Communist countries. Corn, tobacco, rice, and cotton are now being considered as additional products with

already.

But let us add a note of caution: There are

dark clouds on the horizon.

The program was officially launched by Mr. Kennedy's announcement that we would swap the Russians 4 million tons of wheat, which they are greedy for, in return for $250 million in gold, which we are greedy for. And it seemed like the rosy dawn of a new era of peace through mutual greed, in which all men would lay down their swords at last. In order to pick each other's pockets.

True, there were some complaints from midwestern Congressmen, whose militantly anti-Communist constituents also grow wheat, we are only selling the Russians 4 million tons? When our allies are selling them 15 million? What's happened to American salesmanship?

But generally the reaction here to the peace through greed program has been favorable. through greed program has been favorable. After all, it's an approach our Congressmen can understand. And the only real opposition has come from our stanch friend, West Germany.

You know how virulently anti-Communist the West Germans are. And you can't blame them, living as they do in the shadow of the them, living as they do in the shadow of the Berlin Wall. Who knows better the horrors of communism? Who better understands the need to put the economic screws to the Soviet bloc in hopes their evil regime will

fall?

And oh, what an impassioned warning sage old Mr. Adenauer, of West Germany, delivered to us before Mr. Kennedy approved the wheat deal. How, Mr. Adenauer asked with tears in his eyes, could we even think of such a thing? Would we, he demanded, all such a thing? Would we, he demanded, all choked up, really sell wheat to the Communists, and thereby betray our loyal West German allies, who have stood by our side for 15 long years? Would we, he asked, his voice rising, "sell the Communists the noose with which to hang ourselves?" Would we, he summed up, rising to oratorical we, he summed up, rising to oratorical heights, "fatten up our own butcher?"

Oh, how moving it was to hear this old statesman put principles ahead of profit. Of course, it might have been more moving if Mr. Adenauer hadn't approved the sale of 35,000 tons of West German wheat flour to the Communists the day before, which was part of 350,000 tons the West Germans are selling the Soviet bloc, which is part of the $1.4 billion in annual trade between West Germany and the Iron Curtain countries. But, as I say, it was good to hear him

put principles above profit. His principles above our profit.

But a speech like that kind of builds your faith in the peace through greed program. It makes you realize how overwhelming this

AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7885) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment (No. 248) proposed by Mr. KUCHEL, for himself and the junior Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE], to insert on page 48, after line 3, of the committee substitute, as amended, the following language:

SEC. 302A. Section 620 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, which relates to prohibitions against furnishing assistance to certain countries, is amended by adding the following new subsection:

"(i) No assistance shall be furnished under this Act to any country which (1) has extended, or hereafter extends, its jurisdiction for fishing purposes over any area of the high seas beyond three miles from the coastline of such country, and (2) hereafter imposes any penalty or sanction against any United States fishing vessel on account of its fishing activities in such area. provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable in any case in which the extension of jurisdiction is made pursuant to international agreement to which the United States is a party."

The

On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that I may modify the amendment in two particulars. The first is a purely technical amendment. On line 5, I ask unanimous consent that the letter in parentheses “(i)" be changed to "(k)".

The second request would not change in any respect the intent of the amendment offered by my colleague from California [Mr. ENGLE] and me; I think it would improve it. I have been asked by the Senators from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT and Mr. GRUENING] to make this change. I believe it is in the interest of clarity that I make this request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on line 8, after the word "beyond," the remainder of the language ending with the word "country" on line 9 be stricken, and that in lieu thereof there be inserted: "that recognized by the United States,".

Let me explain what the amendment is designed to do. As now offered by the California Senators, this amendment provides, in part, that—

No assistance shall be furnished under this act to any country which (1) has extended, or hereafter extends, its jurisdiction for fishing purposes over any area of the

And so forth. The Senators from Alaska are hopeful that the Government of the United States may ultimately find it to be in the national interest to change the historical 3-mile limit to a 12-mile limit. I do not quarrel with that suggestion at all. The language suggested, therefore, "that recognized by the United States," would, in my judgment, make abundantly clear what we intend to do.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment may be modified in those two respects.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

On page 48, between lines 3 and 4, it is proposed to insert the following:

"SEC. 302A. Section 620 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, which relates to prohibitions against furnishing assistance to certain countries, is amended by adding the following new subsection:

"(k) No assistance shall be furnished under this Act to any country which (1) has extended, or hereafter extends, its jurisdiction for fishing purposes over any area of the high seas beyond that recognized by the United States, and (2) hereafter imposes any penalty or sanction against any U.S. fishing vessel on account of its fishing activities in such area. The provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable in any case in which the extension of jurisdiction is made pursuant to international agreement to which the United States is a party.'"

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, last night I spoke at some length concerning the proposed amendment. I pointed out that, historically, the most widely accepted standard under international law is a 3-mile territorial jurisdiction out from those countries which abut the seas and the oceans. I then stated that three of our Latin American neighbors in particular-Chile, Peru, and Ecuador-have attempted to arrogate to themselves sovereign jurisdiction over the open seas to a distance 200 miles from the shoreline. If they are permitted to do that, they might as well attempt tomorrow to arrogate complete jurisdiction a 1,000 miles seaward.

But with respect to their unilateral 200-mile attempted jurisdiction, they have prevented our fellow Americans from fishing in the open seas, seaward of the 3-mile limit, 10 miles, 20 miles, 30 miles, 40 miles, and more. Indeed, they have confiscated American fishing boats. They have put American citizens in jail. They have fined them. They have made our fellow Americans, exercising a clear international right to journey and to fish upon the high seas, subject to all kinds of personal indignities.

There is a rather peculiar statute in this country. A number of years ago, in 1954, Congress authorized the Secretary of State to pay compensation to American fishermen if their boats were taken away from them on the open sea and they were fined for their activities in international waters. Under that act, provision is made for the Secretary of State, having once approved reimbursement by the Treasury of the fishermen who have paid fines, illegally, to ask the country

imburse the Government of the United States for that amount of money. Not 1 cent has ever come back to the Federal Treasury from an offending country. Indeed, with only one country and with but three claims out of many, has the Department of State even filed a claim. The amendment now before you is simple and direct.

It provides:

No assistance under the Alliance for Progress shall be furnished under this Act to any country which (1) has extended, or hereafter extends, its jurisdiction for fishing purposes over any area of the high seas beyond that recognized by the United States, and (2) hereafter imposes any penalty or sanction against any United States fishing vessel on account of its fishing activities in such

area.

Then the amendment provides:

The provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable in any case in which the extension of jurisdiction is made pursuant to international agreement to which the United States is a party.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KUCHEL. I yield to the able Senator from Alaska.

Mr. GRUENING. I wholeheartedly support the desirable amendment sponsored by the two distinguished Senators from California. What has happened off from California. What has happened off the coast of South America is positively shocking. It is time for the United States to crack down hard on flagrant abuses and protect our citizens. This amendment should do that. It is outrageous that American fishermen, fishing on the high seas, have been seized, taken to court, imprisoned for weeks, and then fined heavily.

Although statistics may vary somewhat, I find that a total of 77 such seiwhat, I find that a total of 77 such seizures has been reported by the American Tuna Boat Association alone. This does not include another category, not tuna fishermen, as to which we are now collecting statistics, in which our shrimp fishermen have been seized similarly off fishermen have been seized similarly off the coast of countries to the south of us. Up to June 28, 1963, fines have been levied on our tuna fishermen in the amount of $162,042.70. The Department of the Interior has no record beyond that date, which is now several months past. So we can assume that the amount of fines has risen. I am hopeful that when the amendment is adopted-as it should be— the State Department will take further steps to recover illegally levied fines and to reimburse the fishermen who have to reimburse the fishermen who have suffered.

Mr. KUCHEL. I agree with the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. GRUENING. The mere reimbursement of the amount of the fines will not compensate the fishermen for their loss of time in fishing. I am not so sure that a larger claim should not be made. But I hope that if the amendmade. But I hope that if the amendment is adopted, the State Department can be counted upon to protect with vigor the fishermen who have suffered for so long.

I am speaking forcefully because a similar situation exists in Alaskan waters, where Japanese and Russian fishermen have invaded Alaska's waters, and

in the case of the Russians torn up our crab fishermen's gear, and in addition to inflicting these losses upon them have impaired their livelihood.

A week or so ago the Senate passed a bill sponsored by my colleague from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT] and other Senaators, which provided that any future violations by foreign fishermen of our 3-mile limit-which is the limit at present shall be punished by fine and imprisonment. But first it is necessary to catch the violators. At present, the U.S. Coast Guard vessels patrolling those waters are not as fast as the modern, up to date Russian Russian fishing vessels, which merely slide away when they are detected, and whose crews laugh at us.

I hope the amendment will be adopted. It should be adopted unanimously.

Mr. KUCHEL. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska for his eloquent contribution to the discussion.

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, I do not attempt to render judgment as to how this problem should be approached, either in connection with this bill or otherwise; but I most assuredly and emphatically congratulate the Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL] and his colleague [Mr. ENGLE] for having sought to solve this very grave problem, which is especially grave for the American tunafishing industry.

I believe the amendment of the Senator from California is all the better because of the modification he has accepted by striking out the language which dealt with a specific 3-mile limit, and by having the amendment read, at that point, "that recognized by the United States."

Am I correct in assuming that the amendment, as modified in the way I have just noted, means the territorial limits or the fishing zone limits of any other nation which are recognized by the United States?

Mr. KUCHEL. I interpret the amendment, as it now reads, to apply the words "recognized by the United States" to all waters seaward of the traditional or historic jurisdictional boundary, subject, however, to the last sentence of the amendment, which would permit negotiated agreements to which our country would be a party.

Mr. BARTLETT. In other words, in dealing with one nation, the United States might recognize a distance of 3 miles; in another case the United States might recognize a greater or lesser distance?

Mr. KUCHEL. That is true.

Mr. BARTLETT. I cannot conceive of a situation in which the distance would be lesser; but in that way we would have entire flexibility.

Mr. KUCHEL. That is correct.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, after reading the amendment-I read it for the first time only this morning, and I blame only myself for not having been in the Chamber yesterday afternoon when the Senator from California submitted so ably, factually, and eloquently his argument in favor of the amendment-I notice that at one point the Senator from California quoted a

member of the U.S. delegation to the 1958 conference as saying that the net effect of the conference was to undercut the arguments made by those who maintain that their nations had a right to proceed unilaterally beyond the distance of 3 miles, or 1 league.

Events since that time have disproved that statement. For example, we know that only a few months ago Canada unilaterally served notice of her intention to establish a 12-mile fishing zone. We of the United States are highly hopeful, and believe, that because of negotiations which are in process, the historic fishing rights of Americans, as established in Canadian waters, will be honored. But here we have an example of the United States negotiating in recognition of Canada's unilateral action as it relates to a 12-mile fishing zone.

The Senator from California, in pursuing the same line of thought, said, "that in 1958, 40 coastal states claimed no more than 1 league as the breadth of their territorial seas"; and just before relating that fact, he said, "that 27 of the 73 coastal states claimed a territorial sea in excess of 1 league in breadth." Everything he said in that connection is correct; but there have been some dramatic changes since 1958, and I believe they should be made a part of this RECORD.

Even since the 1960 conference on the law of the sea, 10 more nations, so I am informed, have extended their territorial limits or adopted fishing zones beyond the 3-mile limit. In addition, some eight other nations have indicated they intend to do the same thing. Among them is the United Kingdom. I am told that the United Kingdom has called a conference for this fall, that it will be participated in by several European nations, and that it is very likely that from that conference, several nations—and, almost assuredly, the United Kingdom will be among them-will abandon the 3-mile limit for

fisheries.

Since 1960, Albania has restricted innocent passage in a 10-mile territorial sea, and claims fishing jurisdiction up to 12 miles.

Cameroon, in June of last year, extended her territorial sea to a 6-mile

limit.

Denmark extended the fisheries limits for Greenland to 12 miles, in June of this year. A similar limit for the Faroes Islands will become effective next March.

Morocco likewise extended her fishing jurisdiction to 12 miles.

On September 1, 1961, Norway extended her fishing jurisdiction to 12 miles.

Other nations have acted likewise.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a list of the nations which have acted in this field since 1960.

There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SUMMARY OF UNILATERAL CLAIMS TO EXTENDED
TERRITORIAL SEAS OR EXCLUSIVE FISHING
ZONES, SINCE THE 1960 UNITED NATIONS
CONFERENCE ON LAW OF THE SEA
Albania: March 1, 1960, restricted in-
nocent passage in a 10-mile territorial sea.
Fishing jurisdiction claimed to 12 miles.

(China: While the Republic of China recognizes the 3-nautical-mile territorial sea, torial sea.) Communist China claims a 12-mile terri

Denmark: June 1, 1963 extended the fisheries limits for Greenland to 12 miles. A similar limit for the Faroes Islands will take effect March 12, 1964. Certain countries are exempted from the Greenland limits until May 31, 1973.

Malagasy Republic: February 27, 1963, claimed a 12-mile territorial sea.

Morocco: Extended fishing jurisdiction to 12 miles, except for the Strait of Gibraltar, for which such jurisdiction was extended to 6 miles.

Norway: Extended fisheries jurisdiction to 6 miles on April 1, 1961, and to 12 miles on September 1, 1961.

Senegal: June 21, 1961, claimed a 6-mile territorial sea, plus a 6-mile contiguous zone. Sudan: August 2, 1960, extended the territorial sea to 12 miles.

Tunisia: July 26, 1962, extended the territorial sea to 6 miles with an additional 6 miles of fisheries jurisdiction for a portion of its coast from the Algerian border to Ras Kapoudia, and extended the territorial sea from there to the Lybian border to the 50 meter isobath line.

Uruguay: February 21, 1963, claimed a 6mile territorial sea plus a 6-mile contiguous zone for fishing and other purposes.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, with fornia, I should like to read from a letter the permission of the Senator from Caliwhich I received from the State Department on June 17 of this year:

That is the table I have already submitted for printing in the RECORD.

According to the latter, it appears likely that at least eight other nations will take similar action. It is clear that as of today, a full majority of coastal nations either have or are planning in the near future to expand their jurisdiction over fish beyond the 3-mile limit. It follows that these extensions up to 12 miles for fishing jurisdiction are accepted

the United States. under international law and must be by

Mr. President, I know the situation which confronts California tuna fishermen and all other American tuna fishermen. A few months ago I had the high honor-at the designation of the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], to conduct hearings at San Diego and San Pedro. I was told then-and was told in vigorous language, and at length of the woes and hardships suffered by hard-working, competent American fishermen because their boats were seized while at various distances off the coasts of certain South American countries clearly outside any rational concept of the territorial limits.

I applaud the Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL] and his colleague [Mr.

Not long ago, and rather unexpectedly, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission adopted a resolution requesting that the U.S. Government extend our jurisdiction over fishing beyond the 3-mile limit. While that demand from fishing groups is not yet universal, it is growing almost every month. They feel that we must have that added protection. I am sure that the legal opinions, when called for, will assert our right to act unilaterally to adopt a 12-mile fishing zone when and if we choose to do so. We know that even a 12-mile fishing zone would not afford adequate protection to New England fishermen, whose historic fishing banks have recently been covered-and I suppose that is about the correct word in that case-by foreign fishing vessels, particularly huge Russian fleets with big ships that remain for months at a time on the Atlantic coast, on the gulf coast, and on our own Pacific coast.

With my colleague from Alaska, I positively if the United States is to mainpoint out that we-particularly those of us in Alaska-must move rapidly and tain any place at all in the fishing world.

In only 5 years we have slipped from second place to fifth place. The amendment, if adopted, would be a move to protect our fishermen, at least in their legitimate search for tuna.

The Senator from California deserves support in his effort to do that which he seeks to do.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I am very grateful to my able friend from Alaska. I thank him very much for his excellent contribution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert two editorials at this point. There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Los Angeles (Calif.) Times, Oct. 6, 1963]

NEW VERSION OF THE BARBARY PIRATES
The notion prevalent in parts of Latin

America that the United States is a fat patsy with a masochistic urge to turn the other cheek should be discouraged.

Senator KUCHEL is on the right track-or has the right emotion-in suggesting that any nation which interferes with U.S. fishing craft on the high seas shall automatically States. forfeit all foreign aid grants from the United

Nations on the northwest coast of South America have made a profitable game of claiming sovereignty over waters 200 miles offshore, to harass the southern California tuna fleet.

Tuna skippers have been forced to pay much as the Barbary pirates once levied toll tribute in the form of "licenses" on each trip, on passing vessels.

In those forthright days, a little gunboat diplomacy had a salutary effect on the blackmailers. Since we have become so civilized, we now make ineffectual clucking noises when our rights are ignored by the spiritual heirs of the 18th century brigands.

Since we apparently regard it as a violation of our Boy Scout oath simply to tell these nations we will blow their ships out