264 



Mr. Fensterwald. T would like to make two general comments in 

 addition to those. , . 



Very briefly. T have listened to the testimon yof the union officials 

 here today, and I mav have mentioned this at the last session and 

 I certainly will not belabor the point, but it seems to me we are back 

 in the same old John L. Lewis syndrome that has happened many 

 times before in this country. I have never been able to get the exact 

 figures, but I think we have here union officials supporting the 

 method of fishing which has drastically reduced the number of peo- 

 ple employed in the industry. T think the committee could probably 

 get the exact number of tuna fishermen who were employed, say. for 

 1060 and the number emploved today. So, it just seems ironic to me 

 that the union officials should be here supporting spokesmen for an 

 industry which has put a great number of its members out of work. 



Second . 



Mi-. Leggett. Of course the work. 1 think they have increased the 

 work for the cannery segment of the industry. 



Mr. FENSTF.nwALD.'Well, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the cannery 

 segment depends in large part on imports, which brings me to 

 another point. 



I think that the law as it now stands would permit a virtual 

 monopoly on the part of the U.S. tuna fishermen if the U.S. Gov- 

 ernment wanted to enforce the law. The law as it now stands, and as 

 it will be enforced, will permit the Treasury Department to ex- 

 clude from import most foreign tuna, because those countries do not 

 live up to U.S. standards. Therefore, the U.S. tuna fleet could not 

 have what would amount to a virtual monopoly. 



Mr. Leggett. You mean most of the yellowfin? 



Mr. Fensterwald. They could exclude all tuna fish from countries 

 who use substandard methods to catch yellowfin. That is one point 

 that the Government does not like to think about or talk about, but 

 the act, as it is written, says that fish from countries which do not 

 use our standards could actually be excluded. The U.S. could exclude 

 any type of fish if it wanted to. I understand the State Department 

 is unhappy about this, and the Treasury Department may be, but I 

 do not understand why the tuna industry is unhappy about it. 



I would suggest that the committee take a look at the law as it now 

 stands, to see if the economic solution for the American tuna fleet 

 does not lie in the enforcement of it as it now stands, including most 

 imported tuna. 



I have some suggested amendments. I know that Mr. Anderson 

 said earlier he would like to have a copy. These were placed in the 

 record, I believe, at the earlier hearing. I think it was last week, 

 but I would certainly be glad to give Mr. Anderson a copy of these 

 proposed amendments. 



Mr. Leggett. Very good. If you will give them to the Chair, we 

 will make them available to Mr. Anderson, and in the event that we 

 determine that modifications of the law are required, we will review 

 these. 



Is it my understanding that you are seeking a modification to the 

 Marine Mammal Act, Mr. Fensterwald? 



Mr. Fensterwald. Mr. Chairman, we would like to see the act both 

 clarified and strengthened, and I think that that 



