Article IV.

"Nothing in the Convention shall be interpreted as changing any existing treaty or convention relating to the fisheries of the Eastern Pacific previously signed by one of the High Contracting Parties, nor as preventing a High Contracting Party from entering into treaties or conventions with other States relating to such fisheries, provided their terms are not incompatible with this Convention." I avail myself of this opportunity to express to Your Excellency my highest consideration.

His Excellency

DEAN ACHESON,

Secretary of State,
Washington, D.C.

MARIO ECHANDI

The Secretary of State to the Costa Rican Appointed Ambassador
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

EXCELLENCY:

WASHINGTON
March 3, 1950.

I have the honor to refer to your note No. 1579 of March 3, 1950 regarding: the Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa. Rica for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, signed at Washington May 31, 1949, which entered into force this day, and the desire of your Government to place on record the understanding of our Govern-ments with respect to the manner in which certain provisions of that Convention shall be applied. Accordingly, I take pleasure in informing you that, without prejudice to the provisions or purposes of the Convention under reference,. my Government concurs in the understanding set forth in your note as follows: With respect to Article I, paragraph 3 of the Convention, which establishes: the proportion of joint expenses to be paid by each High Contracting Party, it is understood that "the proportion of the total catch from the fisheries covered by this convention utilized by that High Contracting Party" shall be the part of the total catch which is used for domestic consumption in the territory of that High Contracting Party or is the object of commercial transactions the financial benefits of which accrue entirely or in their major portion to individuals or firms whose proprietors or stockholders are domiciled in the territory of that High Contracting Party.

With respect to Article II, subparagraph 4, of the Convention, it is understood that the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission is authorized to engage in fishing and other activities for scientific research exclusively and that no commercial ventures by the Commission are contemplated.

It is further understood that, notwithstanding the specific powers conferred upon the Commission, nothing in the Convention shall be interpreted as a relinquishment of or a limitation upon the sovereignty of a High Contracting Party over waters under its jurisdiction.

My Government has also taken note of your statement that certain provisions of the Spanish text might have been more clearly expressed but that your Government recognizes that the authentic Spanish text of the Convention is that contained in the Convention as signed.

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. DEAN ACHESON

His Excellency

Señor Don MARIO ECHANDI,

Appointed Ambassador of Costa Rica.

Senator BARTLETT. The first witness is William C. Herrington,. Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State for Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of State.

Mr. Herrington, sir, we will be glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. HERRINGTON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE TO THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. HERRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is William C. Herrington. I am Special Assistant for Fisheries and Wildlife to the Under Secretary of State. It is my privilege to appear before you to testify on behalf of S. 2568, as amended, legislation requested by the Department of State.

First I would like to call attention to the fact that S. 2568, as amended, contains two errors which should be corrected; one is a misprint, the other an inadvertence. In line 5 on page 6 the word "they" should be "the." In line 4 on page 9 the word "shall" should be "may" so as to make disposal by the court of any seized fish permissive rather than mandatory. This latter change, I understand, is in accordance with the wishes to the Department of Justice.

Essentially, S. 2568, as amended, would revise the existing basic tuna legislation (16 U.S.C. 951) so as to adapt that legislation to present day needs. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission has recommended certain conservation measures for yellow fin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, the United States accepted the recommendation, and it has, therefore, become necessary for the United States to effectuate it. S. 2568, as amended, does just that, vesting certain authority essential to the regulation of nationals and vessels of the United States for purposes of conservation. But before going further into the content of the proposed legislation under consideration here today, I should like to comment briefly upon the origin of the tuna conservation regime for the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.

In 1949 this Government negotiated with Costa Rica a Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. The Convention entered into force on March 3, 1950. The two original parties have since been joined by Panama and Ecuador through adherence by the latter to the Convention. The Government of Colombia has signified interest in adhering to the Convention.

This Convention is concerned with the establishment and operation of an international commission. The Commission has responsibility and authority for gathering and interpreting factual or scientific information to facilitate maintaining the populations of yellowfin and skipjack tuna, as well as other kinds of fish taken by tuna fishing vessels in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, at a level which would permit maximum sustainable catches year after year.

In actuality, the convention is a forward-looking device, that is, it looks to the prevention of the depletion of high seas resources rather than, as traditionally has been the case, to means for their restoration after depletion has already occurred. In the ensuing dozen years the Commission established by the convention has carried out an enlightened and technically advanced program of research which has made it possible for the Commission to determine, with some assurance, the maximum sustainable yield that can be obtained from the yellowfin tuna stock in the convention area and the general size of the yellowfin stock required to support this yield. As a result of recent technological developments, principally use of the power block for hauling nets and use of synthetic fiber in net con

struction, the catch of yellowfin by our fleet increased rapidly during the last few years and, in 1961, the total catch of yellowfin for the first time reached and somewhat exceeded the catch that can be sustained by the yellowfin stock on a continuing basis. At a special meeting in September 1961, the Commission reviewed the situation and concluded that the intensive fishing would continue and that the annual catch for several years, beginning in 1962, should therefore be limited to 83,000 tons in order to restore the stock to the level that would provide the maximum sustainable yield of 97,000 tons. Failure to do this would result in further overfishing and further reduction in the sustainable yield. This recommendation was accepted by the U.S. Government.

The present implementing legislation for the Tuna Convention was enacted in 1950 when the need for conservation regulations was remote, and when knowledge of the kind of regulations that might ultimately be needed was not at hand. For this reason the 1950 implementing legislation did not include authority to regulate. S. 2568, as amended, will rectify this situation.

I will review briefly the principal provisions of S. 2568, as amended, and their purposes in relation to the tuna conservation regime:

Section 2. The Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 (16 U.S.C. 951), the existing basic tuna legislation, would be amended to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate and enforce regulations to carry out recommendations of the Commission, upon the approval of such recommendations by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Interior.

The Secretary of the Interior also would be authorized to suspend the application of any such regulations when, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the U.S. Commissioners, he determines that unregulated foreign fishing in the regulatory area constitutes a serious threat to the achievement of the objectives of the Commission's conservation recommendations.

Section 2 also gives examples of types of conservation regulations that the Secretary of the Interior may promulgate.

In addition, section 2 contains a singularly important proviso to the effect that, under certain circumstances, the Secretary of the Interior, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, shall promulgate regulations to prohibit the entry into the United States, including American Samoa, from any country of tuna in any form, of those species subject to regulation pursuant to a recommendation of the Commission. The circumstances that call for this action are (1) when the fishing vessels of such country are being operated in a manner that would defeat or diminish the effectiveness of the conservation recommendations of the Commission, or (2) when the tuna was taken from the regulatory area by persons not nationals of such country— that is, the country from which they were to be exported-in a manner or under conditions which would defeat or diminish the effectiveness of the conservation recommendations of the Commission.

The legislation provides that this limitation on imports shall be placed into effect at the time that regulations applicable to U.S. fishermen are promulgated. These provisions are intended to remove any possibility that the lucrative U.S. market for raw or processed tuna will provide incentives for the fishermen of other countries to

operate in a manner that will defeat the purpose of the Commission's conservation program, or to withhold or unnecessarily delay the furnishing to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission of the current catch records necessary for the effective operation of the conservation program.

These provisions also guard against the obvious inequity, since manifestly it would be unfair to impose strict limitations on U.S. fishermen for the purpose of conservation when the fishermen of other countries were operating in a manner which made such a conservation program ineffective and were exporting the tuna thus caught to U.S. markets in competition with the production of our fishermen. Such an embargo also would apply to fish taken contrary to the conservation program when offered for transshipment to the United States via ports of a third country.

Section 3 contains authority necessary to the examination of essential catch returns, statistical records, and the like that are required by the regulations adopted under this legislation.

Section 4 accomplishes a number of things:

(a) It makes it an offense for any person to engage in fishing in violation of any regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under the act or to deal in fish taken in violation of such regulations;

(b) It makes it unlawful for the master or owner or any person in charge of a fishing vessel of the United States to fail to cooperate in certain respects concerned with the keeping and inspection of records required by regulations adopted under this legislation;

(c) It, in effect, makes it unlawful for any person to violate an embargo promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior under the act; (d) It spells out the penalties applicable to the various offenses; and

(e) It describes certain judicial procedures with respect to enforcement activities.

Section 5 lodges enforcement responsibility jointly with the U.S. Coast Guard, the Department of Interior, and the Bureau of Customs and contains authority for the designation of officers and employees of States of the United States and of Puerto Rico and American Samoa to carry out enforcement responsibilities. It also:

(a) Deals with legal procedures in regard to enforcement activities; (b) Limits seizures to the cargo of tuna, thereby excepting fishing gear and vessels which had been included in the original version of S. 2568, a change rendered desirable by the unreasonable burden that would otherwise fall on the owners and operators owing to difficulties in getting financing for repairs and fishing operations when vessels and gear are subject to possible forfeiture; and

(c) Gives the accused the choice of selling an alleged illegal cargo of fish at its reasonable market value and placement of the funds in escrow as an alternative to furnishing a costly bond, the premium on which would not be recoverable regardless of the outcome of the charges.

Section 6 is intended only to make it clear that S. 2568, as amended, makes no change in existing law which forbids landing of fish in U.S. ports by foreign fishing vessels directly from the fishing grounds.

The committee will be interested in knowing that series of consultations have been held by the Departments of State and Interior with

concerned segments of the U.S. tuna industry. Every effort has been made to meet the needs of and desires of those groups in the context of this proposed legislation, consistent with the obligations of the United States under the Tuna Convention and its responsibility for following sound conservation practices regarding living resources of the high seas. We believe we have enlightened the industry as to our purpose and will have its general support for the tuna conservation program.

Similarly, the Departments of State and Interior have had representatives visit countries not members of the Commission, but which fish the area in question, for the purpose of enlisting their voluntary cooperation with the program. On the basis of the discussions held we are confident that the program will receive the cooperation necessary from these countries.

After my prepared statement had been readied for the committee, it was discovered that a certain provision of S. 2568, as amended, seemed to require clarification. I would therefore like to supplement my prepared statement so as to clarify the intent of the sponsoring agency, the Department of State, on this particular point.

The proviso beginning in line 21 on page 3 of S. 2568, as amended, would require the promulgation of regulations to prohibit the entry into the United States, including American Samoa, from any country, of fish in any form of those species which are subject to regulation pursuant to a recommendation of the Commission and which were taken from the regulatory area when the vessels of such country are being used in the conduct of fishing operations in the regulatory area in such manner or in such circumstances as would tend to diminish the effectiveness of the conservation recommendations of the Commission.

The portion of this provision which seems to call for clarification is that occurring in line 4, page 4, of the amended version of S. 2568, namely, "when the vessels of such country are being used," et cetera. It has been questioned whether the word "when" in this clause refers to time or circumstances. The Department wishes the record clearly to show that the Department's intent is that this word refers to circumstances. Therefore, any embargo applicable under this provision would be applicable to all of the total catch of the regulated species caught by the country in question in the regulatory area, and not merely to those of such species which were caught while the vessels of such country were actually being used in the conduct of fishing operations contrary to the conservation program.

Hence, to explain this hypothetically, if the last month of the calendar year were closed to yellowfin fishing and the vessels of country X continued, or were permitted to fish for yellowfin during the closed period of December, then all of country X's yellowfin caught in the regulatory area would be subject to the embargo and not just that portion of yellowfin caught by the vessels of country X during December.

Mr. Chairman, if I may sum up, going beyond my prepared statement, I would like to point out the particular importance of two provisions of the proposed legislation which are unprecented in U.S. legislation of this kind.

The first is the embargo on imports.