Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I now read some excerpts from the certified reports of the masters of some of the many vessels which have been harassed, seized, or detained. Their accounts in the 20th century are simply unbelievable. This Nation underwent similar treatment by the Barbary pirates, but one would not think that the supposedly free, friendly countries of this hemisphere would undertake similar acts.

Listen to Joe Lewis, master of the American fishing vessel DV American Boy, who described the harassment of 20 or so American vessels by Peruvian patrol boat No. 69, which, ironically enough, is a former vessel of the U.S. Navy. Lewis Lewis describes how, during a fishing trip that started on October 15, 1962, and ended on January 16, 1963, he went into the Peruvian port of Talara to purchase a Peruvian fishing license. He knew that he would be fishing 10 to 30 miles off Peru, but he "knew of the chasings, boardings, and seizures of tuna vessels, and that forced me to buy a license because of the thought of my vessel being seized and taken into a Peruvian port and being delayed." Lewis states:

Every day for a week a Peruvian patrol

boat, cruiser type, No. 69 (ex-U.S. Navy vessel) would chase us, blinking his lights for us to stop. I would have to slow the vessel

down, turn my boat around so the patrol boat could get a look at the name of the boat, and then the patrol boat would proceed on its way, and we would then continue our fishing. Sometimes this patrol boat would chase some boats two or three times a day,

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

some days he would bother the vessels in the vicinity just once a day. I have been fishing for 23 years, and this is the first time a patrol boat chased me. I was never closer than

7 miles from the beach.

Listen to the sworn statement of George Zeluff, master of the American fishing vessel DV Elsinore describing events off the Galapagos Islands on November 18, 1962. Zeluff had purchased an Ecuadorian fishing license for approximately $2,400 in Panama on his way to the area. This permitted him to fish in Ecuadorian waters within the 3-mile limit. Off the Galapagos Islands, an Ecuadorian patrol boat stopped his vessel and asked him to bring his papers over for inspection. Zeluff did this. The Ecuadoran captain looked at his papers and then stated that he wanted the Elsinore to proceed immediately to Wreck Bay, San Cristobal Island. The captain kept the papers. However, before leaving the cabin, Zeluff noticed that his name was on a folder which the captain had before him. Zeluff presumed this was a list of the names of vessels and names of skippers that purchased licenses from the Ecuadoran Government.

"He knew we had a license but wanted to go through the formality of clearance," writes Zeluff.

At Wreck Bay, the commandant awaited them. Unfortunately, he said, they would have to wait until the patrol boat got into port since the captain had their papers. Again, the Ecuadoran vessel was a former U.S. vessel. The next

morning morning the commandant told Zeluff that he would have to fine him $50 since he did not go directly into port for clearance. All this, despite the fact that the patrol boat had not yet arrived. Zeluff then charted graphically the direct course for the captain. The result was that no fine was paid and the papers were restored to him. Another example of delay in the ability of American citizens to earn their legitimate livelihood on the high seas. Concludes Zeluff:

When I buy a license to fish off the Ecuadoran coast, I buy it because I am afraid of seizures outside of 3 miles. Fishing conditions off the Ecuadoran coast don't require us to fish within 3 miles.

Some would call this blackmail, Mr. President.

Listen to Tom Santos, the managing owner of the American fishing vessel DV Ronnie S. He states in his report describing harassment off of Ecuador:

I also know that on the basis of what has

happened to me in the past, nothing would be done by our Government to prevent the actual seizure; and I did not know what would be our Government's reaction after the seizure. And how long it would take our Government to get us released. I have to be constantly concerned about the high cost of operating my vessel, and you don't catch tuna in port, especially if you are under custody of a foreign government.

What a sad day for an American citizen when he feels that his Government will not back him up.

I mentioned earlier that the only claims which have been filed under Public Law 680 were against Ecuador for incidents which occurred almost 8 years ago. Yet the incidents continue. So do the payments from the U.S. Treasury to reimburse the American fishermen. Through fiscal year 1963, our Government had paid out a total of $131,646.80 to American fishermen who had filed the appropriate claims. There are many other claims yet to be filed.

William T. Kuuse, master of the American fishing vessel Cabrillo reports that on August 6, 1962, he was boarded by Ecuadorians. The captain of the port of La Plata was in charge of the boarding party. The Ecuadorians were in a regular fishing vessel, yet uniformed men were on board. Kuuse produced a radiogram indicating the existence of a valid Ecuadorian fishing license. The captain of the port claimed it was a restricted area and that he wanted to take the Cabrillo into Manta.

Now listen to this:

He then acted and talked as though he was interested in a handout. He asked me about the payment of money to him. We told him that the vessel had no money, but we did offer him cigarettes and whisky. He accepted this offer ***. We gave him nine cartons of cigarettes, and seven bottles of whisky. We also gave them 4 or 5 tons of tuna we had in the nets. There was no real inspection of the vessel by the captain of the port or the other Ecuadorans.

The harassment was over as a result of tuna, cigarettes, and whisky.

ate of the United States now has a historic opportunity to keep faith with a proud tradition and to reassert this doctrine so that all the world will know that freemen everywhere shall be able to continue to earn their livelihood by fishing beyond the recognized international territorial limits of any nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to me from Under Secretary Carr, dated October 24, 1963, be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., October 24, 1963. Hon. THOMAS H. KUCHEL, U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR KUCHEL: Reference is made to your letter of October 17, 1963, regarding the harassment of U.S. fishing vessels off the coasts of various South American countries. The Department of the Interior is deeply concerned with the problem and the need for effective remedial action.

We have worked closely with the Department of State over the years the years seeking solutions through customary diplomatic channels. In this connection, you will doubtless recall that representatives of the Department have been active in the negotiations with Ecuador which have been underway almost continuously since June of this year.

These efforts to work out solutions through diplomatic channels, although in some cases useful, in general have not proved overly fruitful. The same may be said of attempts

The question now is what should be done about this and similar petty and major outrages?

On October 24, 1963, Under Secretary of the Interior James K. Carr replied on behalf of the Department of the Interior to a letter I had earlier written on this matter. He noted that his Department "is deeply concerned with the problem and the need for effective remedial action." The Under Secretary writes that Interior has worked closely with the State Department "over the years seeking solutions through customary diplomatic channels." He points out, how ever:

These efforts to work out solutions through

diplomatic channels, although in some cases useful, in general have not proved overly fruitful. The same may be said of attempts to find solutions in large multilateral international conferences, and it becomes increasingly clear that the United States must take perhaps more drastic action to protect

its fishermen than it has taken before.

Mr. Carr states that the amendment which I have introduced on behalf of myself and my colleague from California [Mr. ENGLE] "is one such course of action." The Under Secretary adds, on behalf of the Department:

It seems to us also that there is a question of the propriety of giving aid to governments which engage in such harassment.

He is absolutely correct. Now is the time for the elected and executive representatives of the American people to stand up and be counted on this question of the protection of American citizens' rights on the high seas. The freedom of the seas must be preserved. The Sen

national conferences, and it becomes increasingly clear that the United States must take perhaps more drastic action to protect its

fishermen than it has taken before.

Act of 1961 which you and Senator ENGLE The amendment to the Foreign Assistance have proposed is one such course of action. The bill introduced in the Senate by Senator ENGLE (S. 1651) is another, as are those introduced in the House by Congressmen VAN DEERLIN and PELLY (H.R. 6656 and 7815). Our reports on these bills are in course of They illustrate approaches preparation.

that merit serious consideration unless ef

forts through customary channels show striking progress. A most effective sanction, if other considerations warrant it, would be to deny to a country which harasses U.S. fishing vessels the privilege of marketing its

fishery products in the United States. It

seems to us also that there is a question of which engage in such harassment. the propriety of giving aid to governments

We appreciate the interest of Members of the Congress in this matter and their initiative in taking action which points the way list of the violations of the rights of U.S. to effective remedies. We are compiling a fishing vessels on the high seas off South America in recent years and will forward this to you in the next few days. Sincerely yours,

JAMES K. CARR,

Under Secretary of the Interior. Mr. KUCHEL The letter in part reads as follows:

We

Meaning the Department of the Interior

have worked closely with the Department of State over the years seeking solutions through customary diplomatic channels. In this connection, you will doubtless recall that representatives of the Department have been active in the negotiations with Ecuador

which have been underway almost continuously since June of this year.

These efforts to work out solutions through diplomatic channels, although in some cases useful, in general have not proved overly fruitful.

I repeat that statement. The Department of the Interior and the Government of the United States affirmatively state that our effort to work out the problems of illegal seizure of American tuna boats on the high seas has not worked out very well through the use of diplomatic channels.

The letter continues as follows:

The same may be said of attempts to find solutions in large multilateral international conferences, and it becomes increasingly clear that the United States must take perhaps more drastic action to protect its fishermen than it has taken before.

I agree. I salute the Department.
I repeat:

It becomes increasingly clear that the United States must take perhaps more drastic action to protect its fishermen than it has taken before.

Hallelujah, Mr. President. That is the basis on which two Californians offer the Senate an opportunity to deny any Alliance for Progress assistance if, in the language of our amendment:

Such country as (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.

That means that the amendment is prospective in character. It is not retroactive.

We then go on to say in our amendment:

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.

That language is in our amendment, so that there is a flexibility written into this provision of our amendment clothing the executive branch of our Government with the right to negotiate relative to international agreements with any country or group of countries with respect to the question of extending the territorial jurisdiction seaward of the traditional or historical 3-mile limit.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD the resolution by the American Tunaboat Association, a letter from the Seafarers' International Union of North America, a letter from the Cannery Workers and Fishermen's Union, and sundry telegrams from interested citizens all favoring the pending amendment.

There being no objection, the resolution, letters, and telegrams were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: RESOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION RE PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF VESSELS OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE HIGH SEAS AND IN TERRITORIAL WATERS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Whereas the traditional policy of the United States is to support the principle of the freedom of the seas, and to this end this country does not recognize claims to juris

diction over alleged territorial waters greater in breadth than 3 marine miles from the coast, since it is the view of the United States, acting through the State Department, that under international law it is not required to recognize such claims;

Whereas seizures of American-flag vessels and in particular tuna clippers have taken place as the result of extravagant territorial claims by foreign claims by foreign countries; claims which are strictly contrary to the traditional position of the United States with regard to the seaward limits of national jurisdiction;

Whereas the most effective means of asserting the doctrine of freedom of the seas is active participation by American-flag vessels in the taking of the resources of the high seas; and

Whereas it is clear that seizures and the threats of seizures, shootings, and imprisonment may cause American fishing vessels to be driven from the high seas with resulting damage to the U.S. fishing industry, and thereby destroy the traditional policy of the United States to support the principle of the freedom of the seas;

Whereas the efforts of the Department of State to end acts of harassment and illegal seizures and detentions of American-flag vessels have been ineffective, and since the U.S. Coast Guard has no authority to exercise protective activities over American-owned vessels on the high seas and in particular the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the American Tunaboat Association urge the Congress of the United States to enact legislation that will establish an across-the-board economic embargo or discontinuance of U.S. economic and military assistance to those foreign countries that have a policy of harassment, seizures, and detention of American-flag fishing vessels; and be it further

Resolved, That the American Tunaboat Association support the joint action of Senator THOMAS H. KUCHEL and Senator CLAIR ENGLE to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.

JOSEPH SOARES,

President. EDWARD P. SILVA,

Vice President. AUGUST FELANDO,

General Manager.

SEINE AND LINE FISHERMEN'S

UNION OF SAN PEDRO, San Pedro, Calif., October 24, 1963. Senator THOMAS H. KUCHEL, U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR KUCHEL: Enclosed please find resolution of the American Tunaboat Association reprotecting the rights of vessels of the United States on the high seas and in territorial waters of foreign countries.

At a recent meeting of the executive board of the Seine and Line Fishermen's Union, AFL-CIO, this same resolution was also passed unanimously.

The amendment which was proposed by Mr. KUCHEL (for himself and Mr. ENGLE) to the bill S. 1276, would if, adopted, in my opinion correct the abuses and harassments to our fishermen.

I want to thank you Mr. KUCHEL and Mr. ENGLE for the fine work you always do on behalf of our members.

With best personal wishes, I remain,
Very truly yours,

JOHN CALISE, Secretary.

CANNERY WORKERS AND FISHER

MEN'S UNION,

San Diego, Calif., October 25, 1963.

Senator THOMAS H. KUCHEL,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR KUCHEL: We have reviewed with interest your amendment to the For

eign Assistance Act of 1961, and as we understand it would prohibit foreign aid to those countries that take it upon themselves to harass, seize or detain American fishing vessels that are engaged in operations outside the 3-mile limit. We are strongly in favor of this legislation, as it is becoming increasingly apparent that seizures and threats of seizures, shootings and imprisonments, which in reality are acts of piracy by these foreign countries, may cause American fishing vessels to be driven from the high seas. This in effect would destroy the traditional policy of the United States to support the principle of freedom of the seas.

Recently apparently satisfactory agreements have been worked out with some South American countries, but straws in the wind tell us that other Central and South American countries are contemplat. ing starting these harassments and seizures again. Of course, we are of the opinion that stronger measures than your amendment should be taken, but we think your amendment will go a long way, and maybe even solve the whole problem. Sincerely,

LESTER BALINGER, Secretary-Treasurer.

Senator THOMAS H. KUCHEL,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:

Board of directors of Fishermen's Cooperative Association and its entire membership urge your protection of American tuna vessels operating on high seas by amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 through the passage of Senate bill S. 1276. Our Senate should consider the need for this legislation and the impact it will have on a great fishing industry. Our association wishes to extend to you and Senator ENGLE our deepest appreciation for your concern through this legislation.

ANTHONY NIZETICH, Fishermens Co-op Association.

SAN PEDRO, CALIF., October 25, 1963.

Hon. THOMAS H. KUCHEL,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:

The executive board of the Fishermen and Allied Workers Union Local 33 ILWU unan

imously support the Kuchel-Engle bill S. 1276 to further amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. We further commend you, Senator ENGLE, and all Congressmen and Senators who are striving in practical and meaningful way to protect fishermen's rights to the international waters of the high seas. Respectfully submitted. FRANK BURCINA,

Acting Secretary Treasurer.

ORDER FOR RECESS UNTIL NOON TOMORROW

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the business for today has been completed, the Senate take a recess until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

AMERICAN FLAG SHIPPING FOR SOVIET WHEAT DEAL

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, the National Maritime Union is deeply concerned and naturally so-over the possibility that an agreement will be made in Washington to permit the transportation of American wheat to the Soviet Union either on foreign ships or at a particularly favorable price.

Mr. President, many jobs are at stake here as well as the stated conditions clearly established by the President when he granted permission for the wheat deal to take place.

Now, Mr. President, we are told that one, perhaps the most important, of the conditions laid down by the President does not happen to suit the Soviet Union and therefore the Soviets expect us to change our position.

Mr. President, when the Soviets wanted to alter the rules and procedures regarding access to Berlin, the United States and other NATO states said, "No," and we meant it. As a result the Soviets were forced to back down.

The difficulties that have come up in connection with this grain question make it very clear that the United States has little to gain from a one shot, so called, commercial operation in which the ground rules are neither clear nor coordinated between U.S. business, U.S. labor, U.S. Government, and foreign nations. What is necessary is a very careful and thorough review of the whole question of trade with the Soviet Union, the role that American shipping should play in such operations and the need for far closer coordination with other free world nations. This is a question of great importance to manufacturing as well as shipping interests.

It is not fair to American business or American labor to work out a deal with the Soviets on a piecemeal basis in which the united pressure of the Soviet Government is going to be exerted against individual American trading or shipping interests. The grain deal should be treated as a part of this entire question.

Maritime and other unions should be included in a thorough review of every aspect both economic, political, shortterm and long-term of any proposed trade deal with the Soviet Union. Then

firm and reasonable ground rules can be established for the whole industry to abide by. The present confusion and discord is exactly what could be expected from any attempt to arrange a oneshot transaction on special grounds with particular conditions-conditions that were not laid down after full study and consultation, conditions that have not to my knowledge been discussed with the maritime unions, and conditions that may now have to be scuttled in an unfortunate manner.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include following my remarks in the RECORD the text of the protest which the maritime unions have made on this issue.

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

We must advise you of our concern over indications that profiteering interests may succeed in excluding American-flag ships from carrying wheat sold to Soviet Union. Claims are being made and apparently listened to by administration officials first that American flag ships are not available and second that they are not available at what these profiteering interests call a fair price.

Both claims are false.

There are many American flag vessels suitable for carrying grain now in temporary inactive status. This does not include vessels in government boneyards. Success of this attack on American flag participation in wheat deal will mean more ships in our boneyards and more unemployment and hardship among American seamen.

On the matter of costs no one yet has approached any sea union to discuss special problems for which special arrangements might be worked out. American runaway flag operators and other foreign flag shipowners want to take over transport of this wheat for their own profit. Communists would like to see them take over. They do not want American-flag vessels and American crews bringing this cargo into their ports because that would make Soviet people realize that our great democracy working under a free system is the only one that can supply

them with this food.

If the principles on use of American flag ships which you set in approving this sale to the Soviets are scuttled the National Maritime Union will be forced to picket in protest and will call on our brothers in other unions to support our protest against those who would exploit this wheat deal for their own profit sacrificing American ships and seamen and aiding the Communist cause.

OBSERVANCE OF AMERICAN ART WEEK

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I wish to call our attention to the fact that American Art Week is being celebrated during these days between November 1 and November 7.

Observance of American Art Week is of particular significance to me as chairman of the Senate Special Subcommittee on the Arts, which has just concluded 5 days of hearings on the two bills we have before the Senate to develop and enhance our Nation's cultural resources, S. 1316 sponsored by Senator HUMPHREY and S. 165 sponsored by Senator JAVITS. I am privileged to be a cosponsor of these two bills. I believe them to be the most comprehensive and constructive legislation in the arts area, which we have ever

had an opportunity to consider in the Senate.

Testimony presented at the subcommittee hearings clearly demonstrates that the arts in the United States are in a ferment of growth, potentially healthy and capable of producing a true renaissance of artistic achievement, but that they are also in a state of crisis because of inadequate support.

I will have much more to say on this subject at a later date; but today I would like to leave the thought with you that throughout the hearings witnesses emphasized the urgent need for cooperation and partnership as we strive toward our goals-a coordinated, dynamic approach to artistic encouragement from individual, civic, foundation, corporate, and government sources. The Federal Government, it was stressed repeatedly, has a vital role to play in this area.

At the hearings-through the testimony of nearly 40 distinguished witnesses-I was impressed once again by the immense variety of our artistic and cultural life. It is the very essence of our democracy and its supreme expresSion. sion. I think we would do well to bear this in mind during American Art Week, which began by fortuitous coincidence on the final day of the subcommittee hearings.

A CALL TO ACTION

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I have been impressed with the lead article in the November 1963 issue of Guideposts, an inspirational monthly magazine for men and women of all faiths which is edited by Dr. and Mrs. Norman Vincent Peale. The article is entitled "Is There a Conspiracy Against God: A Call to Action." It was written by Dr. Bella V. Dodd, formerly a professor at Hunter College and now a practicing attorney in New York City. Mrs. Dodd is known in New York City. all over America as a former Communist, who having seen the error of her ways in an earlier time has dedicated her life to exposing Communist fallacies and Communist tactics for all the world to see and better understand. She has just written a book entitled "School of Darkness: A Personal Record of Communism, U.S.A." which has been published by the Devin-Adair Co.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this eloquent and effective article be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of these remarks.

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

A CALL TO ACTION (By Bella V. Dodd)

The day the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the use of the regents' prayer in New York schools was unconstitutional, I was in a New York court on other matters. News of the decision passed through the room in excited whispers. Sitting next to me was a young lawyer, obviously fresh out of law school.

"Good," he muttered. Then he pointed to the words on a plaque over the judge's bench-In God We Trust-and he added: "That's the next thing that has to go."

I was stunned. "Young man," I said, "I'm old enough to be your grandmother, and

you can take my word for it: when that sign comes down your career will be over because there will be no real law for you to practice."

This, I believe, is the heart of the matter. This is the great danger which faces America if we pursue our present course of removing the acknowledgment of God from our daily lives. Without God, I am convinced, we will have no law and order, no morality, no conscience.

Since that day the momentum of our drive in this direction has rapidly increased. Here are examples:

A Maryland atheist who says "My child shall not pray" has brought about a Supreme Court decision that your child and mine shall not pray in school either. This same person has since started a school for atheism in Kansas which is to include a university, radio station, and printing plant.

A Pennsylvanian who opposes Bible reading in classrooms has been able to have this Bible exercise eliminated from every classroom in the country.

A court case is pending in California to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Under attack are the motto "In God We Trust" on our coins, the use of chaplains in the armed services, and prayers before Government and public gatherings. The objective: to make America officially a godless nation.

It is disheartening to see the submissiveness of school authorities, teachers, and public officials who are going even beyond the Supreme Court edict in removing all reference to the Deity. The New York State Education Commissioner, for example, declared that the recitation of the fourth stanza of "America"-which refers to God-cannot be used as a part of the opening school exercise. In Sacramento County, Calif., it was ruled unconstitutional for schoolchildren to say this grace with their milk and cookies: "God is great. God is good. Let us thank Him for our food."

Behind the scenes are forces at work whose purpose is to remove God as an important influence in the life of our Nation. Billy Graham was right when in his recent Los Angeles crusade he said, “the effort to remove God and moral teachings from our schools is a diabolical scheme."

For several years, I was a member of this anti-God crusade myself. Like many misguided idealists, I went through a period when I put the brotherhood of man above the fatherhood of God, and, as so often happens, this led me into the Communist Party. As early as 1936, I was a disciplined Communist; between 1944 and 1949, I was in the top echelon of the Communist Party of the United States.

I thought I was fighting for social justice, but eventually I discovered that the party did not even have a file on various social reforms. The Communist Party exists not to improve conditions in America but to control them, and not to control them for the benefit of the people but the benefit of the party. It was this realization that finally drove me from communism and, after years of seeking, back to God.

Even in those days there was a well-organized campaign to eliminate God from our education. I was active in this area: I had been a college professor and an organizer of teachers' unions. I knew from experience that students look to their teachers for personal guidance more often than to their parents, and for this reason I labored to recruit as many teachers to communism as I could.

These days, as then, it is not the Communist Party alone which seeks to remove from schools all incidents of a religious nature, whether prayer, Bible reading, or the reference to God in the pledge of allegiance. But whatever they call themselves these groups have the same goal: the displace