Senator MAGNUSON. Go ahead. Allen.

Mr. GUIMOND. Senator, thank you for the time. We will submit our

atement.

One of the things that I feel hasn't been spoken about, and I ought it was one-one of the purposes on the oversight was what e fishermen thought after a year of looking at it, we do feel there e some negative things that have come out and have been addressed ite adequately. I won't talk about joints ventures.

I will say that some of the plus things that we have seen have been he area of major concern-Senator Packwood is aware of it by his mendment to the Fishermen's Protective Act last November-been e mechanism by which U.S. fishermen can resolve disputes and aims with foreign countries. Prior to the enactment of the SCMA e had either an option to go to the Federal court and bring suit if ou could find out who you were suing, or you could go to the claim ard.

And currently there are only three claim boards established. One is ith the Spanish Government, which was just recently established; e Polish Government, which has been in operation for a couple of ears; and the Soviet Union, which has been in operation longer, oing on near 5 years.

I can tell you this much, that we on the east coast and people in ake's area and up and down, who have had the majority of the roblems of conflicts, are extremely happy that we now have the enefit of direct action against the countries because of the requireent of the act for designation of aid for service processing. Additionally, one of the things we have enacted in the foreign egulations, effective January 1, was the use of binding arbitration, sing an American trade association, which we think will allow the shermen to speedily and economically settle these disputes.

One of the problems that we had in getting those types of things s the involvement with the State Department and its role in the anaging of the act.

My statement covers several specific things.

We feel that the State Department does overstep its bounds. The ommerce Department seems reluctant, to say the least, to impleent any regulations that they have the authority to without getting he concurrence of the State Department.

In our testimony we have several examples along those lines that we feel is extremely disheartening, to our way of thinking.

Another area, as the Senator from Hawaii talked to yesterday is his business of the managing of the long liners, specifically the Japanese, and how they are not controlled because of the tuna xclusion.

We have a similar problem on the east coast where the Japanese ong liners do not have to comply with certain regulations that the other foreign countries have to comply with-stay out of certain reas, stay away from other U.S. equipment. So we are pushing for hat kind of adoption.

There have been some plus things that have come out of it. We do not feel that we should run into a massive change of the act at his point. We feel there is time. I share Jake's view on the council and the relationship.

We go into details along those lines.

Basically, I think-there was an article in the Los Angeles Times last Monday. A crew was sent up to New England. I like the headlines. It says, "More fish out there, fishermen like the 200-mile zone but not the regulations."

I tell you, most of the fishermen-and it quotes in the articledon't mind being regulated if they feel their viewpoints are being heard and being considered. They feel that that has not been happening because of, shall we say, a strained relationship between the council and Commerce and the inability of the industry to be able to present itself, and its time and efforts-and people like Lucy and Dick down here-and we are thankful they are around.

But those are some of the problems that we have had.

We are looking forward to, hopefully, resolving some of these other issues. I think it will happen.

Senator CHAFEE. I looked over your statement, and I got the impression-not only from that but from what you said here that the State Department seems to be very reluctant to implement the provisions of this Conservation Act.

I don't know how many seizures of foreign vessels there have beer. on the east coast. I had understood there was only one.

Mr. GUIMOND. Technically, two with the Spanish vessel last week. Senator MAGNUSON. We had those warnings and seizures. We had them the day before yesterday, the figures and facts.

Senator CHAFEE. And then they dragged their feet on implement ing the binding arbitration, and then you had a tough time when they suddenly opened the 100 to the 200 fathoms.

Am I correct in your appraisal?

Of course, we haven't heard from the State Department.

Mr. GUIMOND. I read the State Department's statement. I thoughtI had a copy of the statement that they issued a year ago. It seems to be pretty much the same policies.

As Senator Magnuson recalls, last year we were trying to get certain areas closed off for production. We got them, much to our surprise, Senator. When the 1978 regulations were proposed in the fall there was a continuation of this production. The American fishermen said, good, we got an area.

Three days before Christmas we realized it had-we were told it was changed. We asked what the rationale was. The answer was, the foreign countries had objected.

We wanted to see the documentation. The only thing that was presented to us was a letter from the Soviet Union by Mr. Kominsor (phonetic) objecting to some paragraph, that this area was a hinderance, or something to that effect.

They opened this area up to foreign fishing, effective January 1. Between January 1 and 15 we had nine U.S. vessels lose almost three-quarters of a million dollars worth of equipment and revenue because of foreign activity in this area.

We requested that it be reimposed-they said they would reimpose it if there was any problems. It took us an additional 2 months to finally get it reimposed, because we could not get the State Department, again, to concur with the reimposing.

That is now how we view the act is supposed to be done. That is now how we view the State Department's role.

Senator MAGNUSON. Let me ask this. Do we have a treaty with Issia?

Mr. GUIMOND. Yes.

Senator MAGNUSON. Doesn't that treaty spell out these things?
Mr. GUIMOND. It certainly says they will follow all rules.

The problem we had was, the rules were being changed without players being told they were being changed.

Senator MAGNUSON. I see what you mean. The treaties were broader in the rules.

Senator CHAFEE. What about the binding arbitration? Do you ink it is worthwhile?

Mr. GUIMOND. I think it will work well because it does give a eedy resolution.

One of the biggest disappointments that we have had over the ars and I thought it was going to improve, but it has not-the tims board has existed-and we have fishermen from Rhode Island no had cases before the claims board for almost 2 years plus. The problem is, the claims boards situation has been that it has ot allowed speedy resolution. The average time is 10 and 12 months. rbitration will have a decision in 90 days.

I am disappointed, mainly, at the representatives from the foreign untries. I can't speak to the Spanish because they just got theirSenator CHAFEE. Binding arbitration?

Mr. GUIMOND. The claims board, which made arbitration so derable the Soviet's claim board has been in effect for quite a hile. I had the occasion to proceed with the first case ever presented. he Soviet representative, he said he would like to cooperate and ork with the U.S. fishermen in resolving these problems.

The first incident that we had, last July we went to him, presented e information informally. We thought we were getting good reponses from them, and slowly but surely they started dragging their et and dragging their feet. Until this day we still do not have a ecision from the claims board.

That type of action involves cooperation-and that is how it is efined-necessitated an arbitration as one of the alternatives.

I can tell you right now, I don't think there is a U.S. fisherman n the east coast who will ever go before the Soviet claims board rain.

There has been no indication on the part of the Soviets that they
re willing to be cooperative in their efforts to resolve these conflicts.
Senator CHAFEE. You don't have to go before them, do you?
Mr. GUIMOND. That's correct.

Senator CHAFEE. Isn't that past?

Mr. GUIMOND. Yes. But the reason we went is because of the action, r lack of action by the claims board.

[The statement follows:]

TATEMENT OF ALAN D. GUIMOND, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ATLANTIC OFFSHORE FISH AND LOBSTER ASSOCIATION

We have had a little over one year of the FCMA. I will try to give you our houghts as to what we had expected, what has happened, what we would like o say happened, and what will probably happen. There are several parts to our valuation. The first being those government agencies directly or indirectly

involved with the FCMA; second, the involvement of the management councils; and third, the involvement of the U.S. Fishing Industry.

As we all know, the three major agencies involved are the State Department the Transportation Department, and the Commerce Department. It is our understanding that under the Act, the State Department's role is primarily the allocation of any surplus species to foreign countries who have GIFA's with the United States and who apply for licensing to the Commerce Department. I wish we could say that the State Department has restricted itself to that basic role. For in our opinion, it has not only exceeded what was mandated under the law but has involved itself in areas that supersede the authority of other agencies. I will try to illustrate with some of the major involvements by the State Department.

Under the Act, the Secretary of Transportation is designated the function of primary enforcement agent for the FCMA. He in turn has delegated it to the Commandant of the Coast Guard. I don't think there is any doubt in everyone's mind as to who had the responsibility and authority under the law for this enforcement effort. However, this is not the case. Under current guidelines the local Cutter makes a preliminary decision to seize a foreign vessel based on the specifics of the individual violations. The Cutter in turn contacts the area Commander. If the area Commander decides against seizure, no seizure takes place. However, if the area Commander concurs, then he goes to the Cour mandant of the Coast Guard to request authorization. The Commandant then makes the decision for seizure and that is when seizure should have taken place. However, we all learned last spring when three Soviet vessels and one Polish vessel had been boarded and everyone in the chain of command in the Coast Guard authorized seizure and yet no seizure took place. The Industry with members of Congress pressed the Coast Guard for an explanation. The response from Admiral Siler was that he had to go to the State Department and "confer." When asked last summer would the Coast Guard seize a vesse if the State Department did not concur, the answer was an unequivocal no. We have learned subsequently that there had been a classified procedure of the question of seizure. To this date, we are not aware if that procedure is still in effect or has it been abolished. Since there has been a recent seizure of a Spanish vessel, I think the question should be again put to the Coast Guard would they seize if the State Department said no. Another area of concern is that State Department's obvious dominating position in the formation of rules and regulations involving the foreign fishing fleet operating withi the 200-mile limit. Some examples would be in the Winter of 1977 the Fishing Industry requested that consideration be given to an alternate method of U.S. fishermen recoving monies they had lost as a result of conflicts with foreign vessels. The method proposed was the use of binding arbitration under the rules and regulations of the American Arbitration Association. We were able to convince the Commerce Department as to the necessity for such a regulation. However, the Commerce Department had requested comments from the State Department. After some six months and several meetings, we were still unable to get the State Department to give its view points in writing en this matter. With much persistence, in the late fall of 1977 we eventually had the procedure drafted and ready to go into effect January 1, 1978. This illus tration may seem minor because of the quick way we have illustrated it. But the point is that the Commerce Department could not or would not issue this procedure/regulation which would benefit U.S. fishermen before it got the approval of the State Department; and the fact that we had proposed one basic concept which had to be changed to accommodate the State Department illustrates the type of undue influence the State Department has in the administration of the Act. It is clear from our point of view that the State Department's major concern is to represent the interest of the foreign nations and at the expense of U.S. citizens. Another example was the foreign fishing regulations for 1978. As many of you may remember over a year ago we appeared before Congress to plead that certain protections be included in the proposed regulations governing foreign fishing. One of the areas in the 1977 regulations was a small, narrow zone commonly known as the 100 to 200 fathom band, which was closed to foreign fishing. As a result of this closure, we had no gear conflicts in this area during 1977. When the proposed regulations for 1978 came out in September of 1977, this prohibition was proposed to be continued. Much to our shock and surprise, when the regulations were published in final format in late December of 1977, this protective area had been elimi

nated. We found out that one of the major reasons was that some foreign Countries (the Soviets are the only ones we have been able to identify) complained about this restriction. However, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service itself, no foreign country did not take its quota because of this restriction. Additionally, the Coast Guard expressed concern over the ability to enforce this restriction. We appreciate the Coast Guard's position. However, whatever way they enforced it in 1977 was more than adequate, since we had no conflicts in that area. When we protested to the Commerce Department in December, 1977, and early January, 1978, as to the manner and method on how the prohibition had been eliminated, the response was that it was already in effect and what they (the Commerce Department) would do would be to publish in the Federal Register and notify all the foreign embassies that this 100 to 200 fathom band would be closely monitored by the U.S. and if there were gear conflicts, this prohibition would be reimposed. Between January 1 and February 15, 1978, a total of nine U.S. vessels: lost equipment to foreign vessels which had a combined value of $750,000 ineluding lost revenue. When we pressed for reestablishment of this protective area for U.S. fishermen, we were told that we would have to have documented proof as to who caused the damage. It is ironic that the foreigners were able to get this prohibition dropped by one single paragraph of seven sentences with no documented proof as to the necessity. It is our understand that the State Department resisted in the reimposing of this protective area. It was not until we were able to prove and convince NMFS personnel that (1) the loss could not have been attributed to weather conditions, (2) that there were not any U.S. dragger vessels in the area during this period of time, and (3) that Coast Guard and NMFS sightings placed numerous foreign vessels working in this area. On March 21, 1978, this protective area for U.S. fishermen was reestablished; but it is clear that it was done after much resistance by the State Department. I know not the reason for the State Department's actions in the three situations I have just described, but until there is a change in philosophy the American industry cannot look forward to any type of assistance from one of its own government agencies, the U.S. State Department.. The second agency we deal most frequently with is the Commerce Department; particularly, the Fisheries Service. We are encouraged over a bettering of our relationship during the past year with all segments of the Commerce Department. However, the problems which we briefly described before involving the State Department's undue influence has the greatest impact with the Commerce Department itself. There are new people in NOAA and fisheries whose appointments have given the Industry two opposite concerns. It appeared that the appointments to date were establishing a trend of appointing individuals with a conservationalist/environmentalist background. However, we have been assured that when all appointments are made, we will see a properly balanced administration. I must commend Terry Leitzel, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, for both his responsiveness and aggressiveness in trying to hear the Industry's problems and assist in solving them. We are concerned that fisheries at a both regional and headquarters level is lacking in additional personnel to more properly staff themselves in light of the FCMA. One area of staffing that we still have a tremendous amount of concern is the Observer Program. We still feel that 100 percent coverage of the foreign fleet is not only desirable but would provide the type of importance and protection that we feel is needed. With regard to the Observer Program, we are extremely concerned with the recent developments involving the treatment of U.S. observers aboard foreign vessels on the East Coast. Not only are the physical accommodations substandard in many cases but the contempt in which the foreigners hold our observers gives serious concern as to whether or not certain countries really want to cooperate while fishing within our zone. The reorganization of Fisheries: is about to be finalized and the selection of indiduals to fill the different positions should be taking place within the next few weeks. I am confident that if the types of appointments are made that we have been told, we should see a more responsive fisheries service during the coming years. I strongly feel that the fisheries services has to (particularly on a regional level) tear down the walls that have existed all too long between the fishing industry and themselves. This cannot be a one sided effort and both parties have to take the initiative.

The Management Council concept has proven to be potentially the best way of managing the resource. However, there are several things in our view that