Mr. DINGELL. Our next witness will be Mr. Albert Lannon, Washington representative, International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union. STATEMENT OF ALBERT LANNON, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION Mr. LANNON. My name is Albert Lannon. I am the Washington representative of the International Longshoremen & Warehousemen's Union. I am appearing today on behalf of our Fishermen's Union, Local 33, Secretary John Royal, and on behalf of the international union. We appear in support of legislation aimed at speeding up the cumbersome machinery to provide reimbursement to fishing vessels for illegal fines, and for making mandatory the reduction of that amount from foreign aid payments. We are in full agreement with the statement of Mr. Felando. A little more than a month ago, our 19th annual convention, meeting in Honolulu, adopted a statement of policy. I will submit that for the record, noting that the convention action is unanimous and calls for, on page 3:: We call on the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress to promptly take necessary steps leading to a negotiated settlement of outstanding issues, and to strictly existing laws. Beyond this, Mr. Chairman, we have very little to add to the long and continuing sad story. The industry continues united behind the efforts to resolve this dispute and to allow our fishermen to follow their trade in peace. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Lannon, the committee is indeed grateful to you for your helpful testimony. It is our hope that we will be able to work together. Thank you very much. Mr. LANNON. Thank you. (The material referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF POLICY OF INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN’S“ 19TH BIENNIAL CONVENTION, HONOLULU, HAWAII, APRIL 19-23, 1971 (Statement of policy on tuna boat seizures) Since January 11, 1971, 26 American tuna boats have been seized by Ecuador, and 1 has been grabbed by Peru. Many of these boats are manned by ILWU crews. Ecuador, a country which received some $35 million a year in American foreign aid, and which sells about $75 million in various commodities to the U.S. each year, has collected some $1.2 million in fines from such seizures. The U.S. government has failed to respond, and in March the, State Department voiced its opposition to Congressional proposals for legislative sanctions. Nine Latin American nations have unilaterally declared a 200-mile limit on their coastal waters. Only Ecuador and Peru have attempted to enforce it. Ninety-five coastal countries around the world recognize only a 12-mile limit. Boats that venture within Ecuador's and Peru's 200-mile boundary are subject to armed harassment and military seizure. The boats are boarded, the crews kept under armed guard, private property is stolen, the ship's radio is sealed and its record confiscated, and the boats are forced into port. They are released only upon the payment of substantial fines and the purchase of a costly license. At a later date the boat owner must go through miles of government red tape to make application for reimbursement from the U.S. government. It takes a year or two for him to obtain it because a special act of Congress is required to appropriate money for each individual incident. Because the crew does not share in paying for fines and licenses, it receives no share of any subsequent reimbursement. Partial reimbursement for lost earnings is provided for under present law. But, according to ILWU Local 33 Secretary John Royal, this provision is rarely invoked and is meaningless as a practical matter. Government reimbursement is not provided for damage done to the boat or its gear, or for the damage to or theft of the personal property of crew members. There is no reimbursement for needed medical care expenses, nor is there provision of life insurance if a man is killed in the course of a boat being seized. Since the enactment of the Fishermen's Protective Act in 1967, the Secretary› of State has had the authority to claim from countries seizing American boats the amounts of the fines being collected, or deduct such amounts from those countries' foreign aid grants. The Secretary has never used that Congressional authorization. The one-year suspension on the sale of military gear to Ecuador has had no effect. The U.S. government, deeply enmeshed in Latin America's internal politics, has simply refused to take meaningful action, the fishermen being used as pawns in a political chess game. The 1969 ILWU Convention went on record condemning the harassment and seizures, demanding immediate action be taken by the U.S: government, and demanding enforcement of existing laws. The Convention further called for an immediate conference to negotiate a peaceful settlement to claims on territorial waters, and called on the International Officers to lend necessary support to the fishermen. Government inaction in the last two years has served to greatly heighten existing tensions. There is increasing talk of crews arming to defend themselves, work stoppages on vessels carrying Ecuadorian cargoes, and a national boycott. of Ecuadorian products. We do not advocate that such actions be taken, but note that they are the inevitable result of government's failure to act. We call on the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress to promptly take necessary steps leading to a negotiated settlement of outstanding issues, and to strictly enforce existing laws. Pending such talks, we adamantly condemn any armed attacks or firing upon unarmed boats, and the confiscation of vessels and the imprisonment of their crews, actions reportedly threatened by Ecuador. We ask the rest of the labor movement to join us in the efforts to protect the lives and livelihoods of American fishermen. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Charles Orbank. Mr. Orbank, the Chair notes that you are present to answer questions. At the present time we would like to address a couple of questions to you. Would you identify yourself for purposes of the record and also the gentleman who accompanies you for the assistance of our reporter. STATEMENT OF CHARLES ORBANK, ACCOUNTING OFFICER, BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES P. SPAHR, FISCAL STAFF ASSISTANT Mr. ORBANK. My name is Charles Orbank, accounting officer, Bureau of Accounts, Treasury Department. Mr. DINGELL. And the gentleman with you? Mr. SPAHR. My name is James P. Spahr, fiscal staff assistant, Bureau of Accounts, Treasury Department. Mr. EVERETT. On May 27, General Counsel Ingler wrote a letter to the chairman, Mr. Garmatz, stating that they did not have sufficient interest to supply a witness and they though they would write a report. Today we have not seen a report that I know of. Has that report been sent to the committee yet? Mr. SPAHR. Sir, as I understand it, the report is now being cleared. Mr. EVERETT. I wonder if you could briefly summarize what the report says? Mr. SPAHR. Sir, I have not seen the report myself, so I cannot summarize it. Mr. EVERETT. Well, in view of that, can you tell us or do you see any problem with respect to the administration of the bill by the Department of Treasury, particularly with respect to the deduction of the claim funds you programmed to a country under the Foreign Assistance Act, that is having it transferred into a separate account of the Treasury? Do you have any problem with that language of the bill? Mr. ORBANK. The arrangement as set forth in the bill is workable. Mr. DINGELL. Are you satisfied that it is fully technically correct from the standpoint of the Treasury Department, gentlemen? Perhaps rather than asking you that question, which I suspect is just a little bit unfair, would you tell us, if you please, gentlemen, whether or not there are changes of a technical character which would be necessary to perfect the mechanism of the bill? You may want to do this at a time later. In other words, what we are trying to ask is your assistance and advice on what may be necessary to make the bill workable. Mr. SPAHR. Mr. Chairman, we believe the bill as drafted is technically feasible, but we would want to say that there are one or two alternatives that could be substituted. Mr. DINGELL. Would you like to outline these particular alternatives at this time? Mr. SPAHR. Well, one alternative that could be considered by the committee, would be a permanent indefinite appropriation. Mr. DINGELL. Permanent Mr. SPAHR. Permanent indefinite appropriation. Mr. DINGELL. That would be what? Mr. SPAHR. It would be an appropriation which would be similar to the appropriation used to pay the public debt interest. It would require no annual certification or appropriation by the Congress. It would be available without a fiscal year limitation. Mr. DINGELL. I am generally familiar with this. I understand the moneys to meet the obligations on the public debt are simply expended without congressional action. Is that correct? Mr. SPAHR. That is the type of appropriation I am talking about, yes, sir. This would require additional language in the bill, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DINGELL. Now, again, you are in a very delicate position here, and I do not want to jeopardize your position. Obviously, you are not here necessarily to suggest other than technical assistance to the committee. Mr. SPAHR. That is correct. Mr. DINGELL. Could you give us some language which would accomplish that end together with your comments after you have had a chance to consider whether that would be preferable both from the Treasury's standpoint and preferable from the standpoint of efficiency and expeditious handling of the matter from a congressional viewpoint? Would you do that for us, please? Mr. SPAHR. Yes, sir. Mr. DINGELL. It will be very helpful indeed. Do you have any other alternatives? Mr. SPAHR. Well, the only other alternative that comes to mind would be a no year appropriation, which would require an appropriation at some point, but it would be available without fiscal year limitation. Mr. DINGELL. And until expended. Mr. SPAHR. That is correct, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Could you submit us language on this point and give us comments as to preferability of that and the permanent appropriation mechanisms from the standpoint of the Treasury and such other comments as you may deem appropriate. Could you do that for us? Mr. SPAHR. I am sure we certainly could. Mr. DINGELL. Understanding that this is technical assistance, and it is not necessarily an endorsement on your part or endorsement on the part of the Treasury unless you so indicate. Mr. SPAHR. Yes, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Everett? Mr. EVERETT. Yes, sir. Mr. Orbank, Mr. Felando just previously pointed out that he thought it might be desirable to put section 3 and section 7 provisions into one fund, rather than keeping them separate, as provided under present law. Do you have any comments as to the feasibility of handling both of these programs under one fund? Mr. ORBANK. Presently there are the two accounts, the two funds. One is administered by the Department of the Interior and the other by the Department of Treasury. We would see no pitfalls by having just the one fund. Of course, certification would come to the Treasury Department from the Department of State, and payment would be made from just one fund. Mr. EVERETT. Do you have any thought on the lien provision under section 4 of the bill, pending verification of the payment to the vessel owner? Mr. SPAHR. Mr. Everett, may I address this? Mr. EVERETT. Yes. Mr. SPAHR. In our analysis of the bill, we confined our analysis to section 5 on the fund language. We did not take up the lien provision in section 2. Mr. DINGELL. Gentlemen, you have been of great assistance to the committee. If you could, when you return, indicate that the committee would appreciate having the submission of the report on the bill expedited and if you have any technical suggestions that you would like to submit on any bills pending before us, that would ease the problems of the Treasury in administering them in an orderly fashion, we would appreciate it. Mr. SPAHR. Yes, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Gentlemen, we thank you for your presence. If there is no further business to come before the committee, we will stand adjourned until call of the Chair. (The following was supplied for inclusion in the record :) 65-245-71-17 Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., June 22, 1971. Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In accordance with your request, I wish to state that the following claims listed on the attached sheet filed by the private owners of fishing vessels assessed by Ecuador are subject to reimbursement under the provisions of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 as amended. These claims have been certified by the Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Treasury on the dates indicated as provided for in the above act. It is my understanding that these claims have not been included in the supplemental appropriations bill H.R. 8190. I hope that this information is responsive to your inquiry. If I can be of any further assistance to you, do not hesitate to call on me. Sincerely, Quo Vadis: Mr. R. A. Watt. Jan. 21 May 12 48, 150 Sun Europa: Mr. Salvatore Crivello, Mrs. Esther J. Lattuca (Crivello), Mr. Vincent Jan. 27 May 3 23, 050 THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, FISCAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., June 25, 1971. Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to a telephone call received from Mr. Everett, Counsel to the Subcommittee, please be advised that there are on hand in this office, six vessel claims which have been certified by the Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Treasury. These claims are indicated below: Reimbursements to owners of vessels cannot be accomplished until funds are appropriated by the Congress specifically for this purpose. We hope that this information is responsive to your inquiry. Very truly yours, S. L. COMINGS, Comptroller. |