taking these actions because of the fact that we are raping the stocks, and we are destroying the stocks and under the guise of conservation they must take this action. That is an absolute fallacy, a total untruth because the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission has, since the passage of the 1950 Tuna Convention Act, has maintained an international scientific staff that has policed these stocks very religiously and very carefully and since 1966 we have implemented a quota system. Now these stocks are thriving under this Commission and are not being destroyed in any way, shape, or form. So using the guise of conservation is no reason whatsoever.

Mr. DINGELL. Now what about the others, the economic support from our Government for internal activities and also engaging in the practice or engaged in the practice of trying to increase their own respective shares of the catch?

Mr. ROYAL. In the attempt to increase their own respective shares, I feel that the record will show that over the years they have increased their catching ability, their fishing ability and their fleets have gotten their share on a fair competitive basis on the high seas competing with other countries as well as America.

They are expanding their fleets rather rapidly, and their ability to fish in these waters and the close locations of the stock, they have a better chance than we have. They are not being denied the right competitively to get their share.

As far as the governments doing this to expect more financial aid from our country or to extract more money, I think that this might be one part of it because every time that we have an incident like this here, rather than facing it head on, the U.S. Government goes down right away and to use an old adage of dangling more carrots in front of them, so what does more carrots mean?

It could mean any number of things that we will do for them from providing them with research vessels; providing them with technicians; providing them with all sorts of services.

I think the classical example was 2 years ago before I went to Argentina when Rockefeller was making four or five trips down there for President Nixon and they were hitting him with everything from tomatoes to eggs, asked Mr. Felando and myself and others if we would spend some time with him in New York. We flew up and sat with him and we had a very pleasant afternoon with him and among other things he said that Ecuador was in bad financial straits, and maybe one of the things we should do is to assist Ecuador, to stop Ecuador from seizing American vessels, would be to get major U.S. oil companies to go in there and develop Ecuador's oil potential and resources and bring about a greater economic stability to the country of Ecuador, thereby backing them off the tuna boat problem.

This comes under the heading of giving them more carrots.

Since then this has happened. I think it was 2 weeks ago Friday night when the President of Equador was speaking to the American public via television, and one of the statements he made which shows the irony of the situation, and the fallacy of this type of thing, was, he said that if President Nixon did not stop the American tuna companies from pirating tuna out of his water within 200 miles, that Ecuador may now have to take a good look at the American companies that have holdings and have developed oil interests and industries in his country.

So this goes right back to 2 years ago in October when the military government took over in Peru and did the very same thing.

So here on the one hand you give these bums everything they need to build up their resources so they will get off your back, and they still get on your back and then they say now I've got more of your stuff to grab if you give me any lipservice over tuna boat seizures.

Now you had two more questions, Congressman. I am sorry.
Mr. DINGELL. I think you have done very well.

Mr. Mailliard?'

Mr. MAILLIARD. I don't think I have any questions.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Leggett?

Mr. LEGGETT. No; I think the tuna industry has been very wise to save you as cleanup batter, Mr. Royal, you have certainly put a lot of nails into this thought as far as I am concerned. Certainly when I came here today, I like many Members of Congress, we are looking toward conservative solutions. I think that we see here a classic case of 10 or 20 years that we have slipped into a habit of appeasement, and kind of like a spoiled child. You try to reason with him and you come to a point I think, where you just have to be stern, and I think your suggestion about--of course we could engage in more legislation and you don't like that we could further confer and negotiate, and that has been unproductive; we could suspend military sales and we have done that, we can accelerate reimbursement but again that is just quieting you folks down so you don't holler so much; we could offset automatic foreign aid payments in favor of tuna people which again is a coverup; or we could do what Mr. Van Deerlin suggests, put an armed guard on or go the whole route like you suggested short of stationing the U.S.S. Forrestal and several more.

I tend to think that you are right. I think that words have gotten very, very cheap over a 20-year period, and I think now action is required and I think almost the conservative way to handle it at the present time would be to station a DE off the coast down there.

Mr. ROYAL. On behalf of the industry we appreciate those remarks very, very much, Congressman.

I might close by stating that I find no objection with Congressman Van Deerlin's suggestion about placing a uniformed official or man aboard each one of our tuna vessels, but the only amendment I would offer to that suggestion would be that the first donkeys to stick in uniforms would be the representatives of the State Department.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Anderson?

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Royal, I would like to congratulate you on a very fine presentation. I think the remarks of Congressman Leggett to a great extent, expressed my feelings. John Royal is a constituent of mine and this is not the first time I have heard him testify. I can almost tell when he has contacted my office in the Capitol, because I can feel the sparks in the office back there. John, I think you have stated the problem very well, I know that your coming here today before this committee, is going to bolster our feelings. I want to thank you for your presentation.

Mr. ROYAL. Thank you, very much.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Van Deerlin?

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. John, you and I have been side by side in this matter for some time, and only in the interest of clarifying the record,

I know that when you spoke about the ultimate peril of an act of violence occurring down there that might result in the sinking of a vessel, or in the killing of an American fisherman, you were voicing a fear which I share, which is, this could lead to a very great deal of retribution on the spot and make a sad situation an even greater tragedy. You were not, I feel certain, although I think perhaps the record might leave some confusion on this point, you spoke of the possible possibility of retribution here in this country. I know that as a port commissioner of Los Angeles, you are not espousing a political murder of a crewman on an Ecuadorian ship here, an eye-for-an-eye, or a tooth-for-a-tooth basis for someone who was killed in an incident unrelated to the visit of the ship to the United States, obviously. As a responsible person, you are not suggesting that we resort to political murder in retribution?

Mr. ROYAL. As a member of the port commission, sir, I am not; as a corrupt union official, I will not bind myself; I will retaliate myself in turn as to the degree of incident as they occur. I do not advocate murder, but there are many things that can be done short of that which have not been done.

I think the retaliation from the people home here, who are here when their families are down below, will be measured by the degree or the severity of the incidents that take place down below.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. We are agreed then, that we are not espousing murder as a resort in this case, and we don't have to advise foreignflag vessels that they will find safety only in the port of San Diego? Mr. ROYAL. No, sir; because I also have an office in San Diego, sir. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Royal, we thank you for your most helpful

statement.

Mr. ROYAL. Thank you, gentlemen, and your staff.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair notes our next scheduled witness is Mr. Ken Jordan, San Pedro Chamber of Commerce.

Is Mr. Jordan in the room?,

(No response.)

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair has been informed Mr. Jordan may be late. Then we will afford Mr. Jordan an opportunity to be heard a little later.

The Chair notes that I have received a message from a member of the staff that Mr. Max Peter Grbelja has a statement, and if you will identify yourself fully for purposes of the record we will be happy to hear your statement.

STATEMENT OF MAX PETER GRBELJA

Mr. GRBELJA. Max Grbelja. I work at the cannery. I have a thought. The United States has control of the Panama Canal, so I think these banana republics, OK, you seize our boats, OK, no go through that canal.

That is why I say we have an interest in that canal. OK. You want to go through, stop this seizure of our boats, and brother, I think you have them over a barrel in that Panama Canal.

They have their own boats that want to go through that canal as well as our boats. Thanks for T.R.-Teddy Roosevelt for building that

canal in 1914 and opened it before his administration, I think you can right there at the Panama Canal tell those guerrillas to go mind your own business or if you want to go through that canal, OK, go through in our interest and not yours.

Thank you.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you very much, sir.

The committee is grateful to you for your statement.

Is Mr. Jordan here yet?

Mr. ANDERSON. Is there anyone here who can speak for Mr. Ken Jordan of the San Pedro Chamber of Commerce? We are about to bring the hearing to a close.

(No response.)

Mr. ANDERSON. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on the matter?

:(No response.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Sharood?

Mr. SHAROOD. Mr. Chairman, I wonder since we have just a couple of minutes, if I could ask one question of Mr. Felando for the record on an issue that came up here.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Felando, would you rise and come to the committee table here so that Mr. Sharood can direct some questions to you, sir?

Mr. SHAROOD. A number of people have commented to the effect that it is very difficult to get this money out of the State Department in compensation for the losses of fines and so forth. Another gentleman mentioned affidavits and a great volume of paperwork.

Is it not a relatively simple matter to ascertain fines and the actual cash payments that were made? Is there anything mysterious about this?

Mr. FELANO. I can explain the procedures, Mr. Chairman.

I personally have been involved in the processing of these claims. The law itself requires, No. 1, the owner establish that the vessel was seized on the high seas as recognized by the United States.

Second, the other fact that has to be required is that U.S. citizens are involved in the payment of the fine.

The third factor of course, is the amount that is required.

According to the instructions that are received by us from the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, we have to follow a certain set formula-statement of claim.

That claim has to be supported by documentation. Although in fact what happens here in most of the instances, since under the law the Secretary of State has a duty to come to the assistance of the vessel and crew and obtain their prompt release, what happens is that they generally take the statements from the men. In fact I have copies of the statements of the last 17 seizures.

They take copies of the logbooks. So you are correct in stating that there is a lot of duplication involved here, insofar as we have to wait for the vessel to come back, obtain copies of the statements, take statements of the skipper, obtain the documentation of the logbook and also obtain a copy of the decree. The same sort of exercise occurs down, say in Ecuador. They receive the statements on the scene which are actually better statements than maybe we could obtain at a later date. They have a copy of the logbook; they have a copy of the decree, and

I think maybe the only thing that is missing is the documentation with regard to the U.S. citizenship of the individual owners of the vessels.

So there is a lot of duplication in this effort and it usually takes us a long time to wait for the return of the vessel, get all the documentation.

Mr. SHAROOD. When you say "they," are you referring to American officials down there?

Mr. FELANDO. Yes. In fact what we have here is generally on the scene, immediately, a consulate member who makes a statement under oath of the skipper-I have copies of the statement here with meand they obtain the original documents and so they have all of the facts with regard to where the seizure took place, the name of the vessel, the seizing vessel, and so forth, involved. So they transmit that information from the consulate back to the Department of State.

Nevertheless, under the procedure established by the legal advisers of the Department of State, we have to submit a very complicated claim and we have to establish the fact that the vessel is a U.S.-flag vessel; the fact that everyone involved are U.S. citizens; and the actual amounts that were paid out.

Once the legal adviser-and in many instances they say they have to wait for a translation of the documents and we had to do a lot of the translation of the documents ourselves in order to speed up the process. However once we file the claim, the certification by the legal adviser is rather quick.

So it seems one of the ways- -one of the administrative ways of speeding up the procedure of handling the claims-would be to avoid a lot of the duplication that is involved.

Mr. SHAROOD. Were you ever explained why you had to have a duplicate set of books?

Mr. FELANDO. I think you would have to talk to the individuals involved, Mr. Kwiatek and Mr. Henderson, this might be the internal requirements of the State Department.

To a great extent the speed within which we process our claims are dependent upon how fast the Ecuadorans get the information to the U.S. Consulate on the scene.

It seems that once we have filed a claim, the legal adviser and the State Department acts rather quickly in certifying it. After it is certified to the Secretary of the Treasury, we then have to wait for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this part of the claims and judgment section of the appropriation act.

Then this goes to the regular House committees and goes through the regular legislative process of enacting a law.

Mr. SHAROOD. What is the average length of time-if there is an average that it takes to get a claim processed?

Mr. FELANDO. On the basis of about 25 claims we have averaged 1 year from the date of seizure before payment is made; some individuals have had to wait as long as 731 days.

Mr. SHAROOD. This includes the crew's wages as well?

Mr. FELANDO. Yes. This is part of the gross sales and they have to wait as well.

So there is this administrative delay; and a lot of it I think you can find upon inquiry of the legal adviser as to the requirement. I do feel