This embargo on imports is designed to give the most support to the conservation program by denying U.S. markets to those who do not cooperate in this conservation program. The second important provision is that for the suspension of U.S. fishermen under certain conditions. This proviso protects them from inequitable control, if such cooperation is not obtained to the extent that the operation of the foreign fishermen seriously jeopardizes the conservation program. I would also like to comment on the importance we attach to the expeditious action on this legislation. In many international conferences, or conferences relating to law of the sea during recent years I have heard representatives of small fishing countries express great concern regarding the operations of large fishing vessels off their coasts. Their representatives have expressed the opinion that these operations were designed entirely for profit, and with no concern for conservation. They use this as an argument to provide the coastal State should be given jurisdiction over these areas, or the fisheries in these areas, to assure an interest in conservation. The United States in these discussions has occupied a rather favorable position: first, because over the years we have had a very good record in the international conservation of fishery resources. I cite, for example, the record of the Halibut Commission, of the Fraser River Salmon Commission. In addition to this, we could point to the organization and operations of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. The United States has played a leading role in negotiating the convention, in organizing the Commission and financing the operations of the Commission. We have taken the position that this Commission had not found conservation regulation necessary. At such time as the Commission fund such measures necessary, the United States was prepared to proceed, to put into effect such recommendations. Now the Tuna Commission has found such regulations necessary. I believe it is much to our overall interest that we act in an expeditious fashion. Now, a number of us here today have just returned from meetings in Quito, Ecuador, the meeting of the Tuna Commission and, following this, a meeting of the governments. At this meeting of the Tuna Commission the recommendation we had was reaffirmed: the conclusions as to the need for conservation measures, and the recommendation that the governments put into effect an overall quota of 83,000 tons. Following the meeting of the Commission, the representatives of governments met. At this meeting the United States described the plans we had for implementing the recommendations of the Commission. We described and discussed the legislation you have before you today-it was draft legislation-which is now before our Congress. This presentation was met very favorably and as a result of it the group recommended to governments that a committee be set up to study the plans of the various governments for implementing the committee's recommendations, and that the U.S. legislation, when approved, be used as a basis for the study of what nations should do to carry out the recommendation. As we stand now, the United States is not in a position to press forward for such action until we have approved legislation under which we can operate. As an overall view, I believe it is clear that U.S. action on this recommendation of the Commission should be such as to give all reasonable support to the program and to make it clear that if the conservation program fails it is caused by the actions of others and not by failure. to act by the United States. To do this we must proceed with this legislation. In the light of this background I am convinced that failure to act will jeopardize the conservation program; it will reflect discredit on the United States and will stimulate action by others whch will be contrary to the interest of the U.S. tuna fleet. To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I have with me today Mr. Eugene Bennett, a senior member of the U.S. Tuna Commission, who has served as a Commissioner since the Commission was organized in 1950; Mr. Donald L. McKernan, Director of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries; and Dr. J. L. McHugh, who is also a U.S. Commissioner and Chief of the Division of Biological Research, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Department of the Interior. He is prepared to present the scientific basis for the Commission's current recommendation regarding yellowfin tuna. Mr. Bennett is prepared to give the committee some general background on the work of the Commission that led to the Commission's recommendations. Mr. McKernan is ready to review the plans of the Department of Interior has to carry out its responsibilities for regulating tuna fishing under the provisions of S. 2568. That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I shall now be happy to try to answer any questions you may have on this proposed legislation. Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Herrington. Let me get this clear, Mr. Herrington. In your supplementary statement you made it clear that the Department of State intends to relate the word "when" to circumstances and you went on to offer illustrations which as I interpreted your explanation was to the effect if the United States and the signatory countries were to ban yellowfin fishing during the month of December and a nonmember country fished at that time, notwithstanding, it would not only be the December fish from this nonmember country that would not be permitted from the United States but fish that might have been caught in October, or whenever, preceding that time, or later? Mr. HERRINGTON. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The embargo would be against the importation of any yellowfin tuna caught from that area, no matter at what time. Senator BARTLETT. And you wouldn't have to seek, determine the time of catching, but the fact that the fishing boats or boat of this nation were or was discovered with caught fish would constitute itself grounds for an embargo? Mr. HERRINGTON. Yes, sir. This country would not cooperate under the conservation program. Senator BARTLETT. How long would that embargo extend? Would it have any limitation in point of time? Mr. HERRINGTON. That would extend until the Secretary of the Interior found that the country was in cooperation. I don't have the exact terms. Senator BARTLETT. But there is a machinery for that being done? Mr. HERRINGTON. Yes, sir. Senator BARTLETT. That is sufficient. Now, Mr. Herrington, how did the amended bill differ in its principal characteristics from the bill as originally introduced? Mr. HERRINGTON. One, it includes this provision for the suspension of regulations under certain circumstances. I mean, when the fishermen of other countries are operating in a manner that would endanger seriously the Commission. It includes provision for selling the seized catch and placing the funds in escrow if it is desired by the owner of the catch. Senator BARTLETT. That is one significant change. Mr. HERRINGTON. Yes, sir. The addition of the provision to suspend regulations, one; the provision for putting this is escrow is the other. I think these are the principal changes. There are a number of other less important ones. Senator BARTLETT. On the first page of your statement you said that the recommendations of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission in respect to conservation have been accepted by the United States. How was that acceptance arrived at? By whom and how? Mr. HERRINGTON. By the Secretary of State in consultation with the Secretary of Interior. Senator BARTLETT. And that was in accordance with authority granted by the 1950 act? Mr. HERRINGTON. That is right; it was in accordance with the act. Senator BARTLETT. And when, a bit later on that same page, you Isaid that the amended version of the bill now before us vests certain authority essential to the regulation of nationals, you mean that authority is vested in the Secretaries of State and Interior? Mr. HERRINGTON. It is vested in the Secretary of Interior, on some occasions in consultation with the Secretary of State. Senator BARTLETT. On the next page, you refer to United States having negotiated with Costa Rica for the convention back in 1949 as having gone into effect in 1950 and then you went on to say that two original parties have since been joined by Panama and Ecuador through adherence by the latter to the convention. By the word "latter" do you mean both of those countries? Mr. HERRINGTON. Yes, sir, two countries. The provision is for the adherence by additional countries; first, they indicate to the member countries that they would like to join. On approval of the member countries, the country which wishes to join can ratify its adherence to the convention. The Government of Colombia has indicated its interest, the member countries have approved Colombia joining; in this case there remains action by the Government of Colombia to ratify its adherence to the convention. Senator BARTLETT. What other countries now have nationals fishing in this general area? Mr. HERRINGTON. Principally Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile to a minor extent, and Japan to a minor extent. There may be a small amount of fishing by others. Senator BARTLETT. Do you know why Peru has not joined? Mr. HERRINGTON. I believe the reason is involved in her position regarding a claim to jurisdiction of territorial waters extending not less than 200 miles. Senator BARTLETT. Do Mexican nationals fish actively? Mr. HERRINGTON. Yes, sir; they are engaged at this time in a small amount of fishing. Senator BARTLETT. But the Japanese only to a minor degree? Mr. HERRINGTON. I believe in connection with fishing for bigeye tuna. Senator BARTLETT. Do you know if Japan and Mexico have been invited to join in the convention? Mr. HERRINGTON. Mexico has informally indicated her interest in joining and I believe Japan is considering the matter at present. Senator BARTLETT. If they were to join that would bring within the grouping in the convention all the concerned nations except Peru, providing Colombia does come in? Mr. HERRINGTON. Well, Chile is also involved to some extent and the other countries facing on the Pacific could now or in the future become involved in the fishery for tropical tunas. Senator BARTLETT. This situation is not necessarily static, then? Mr. HERRINGTON. Entirely not, sir. Senator BARTLETT. Have the Russians ever come down to that area? Mr. HERRINGTON. To my knowledge the Russians have not so far been involved in tuna fishing in the Eastern Pacific. Senator BARTLETT. It is not beyond their capabilities? Mr. HERRINGTON. I would think it is not beyond their capabilities.. I might add that Canada has indicated some interest because Canadian, certain people in the Canadian fishing industry have indicated some interest to participate in this fishery. Senator BARTLETT. But they haven't yet? Mr. HERRINGTON. No, sir. Senator BARTLETT. What is the geographical boundary of the water area under discussion here if you are able to state that verbally? Mr. HERRINGTON. I believe Mr. McKernan has a copy of the regulatory area approved by the Commission. Senator BARTLETT. All right, we will wait until Mr. McKernan comes on for that. How might it be made sure, if it can be, that nonmember countries whose nationals fish for tuna in the convention area would give effective cooperation, Mr. Herrington? Mr. HERRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, in the fish business I know of no way to make anything absolutely sure. Senator BARTLETT. And you are very right I might add. Mr. HERRINGTON. I believe by discussing with them the advantages to all of having an effective conservation program this is very important. I think finally their interest in the U.S. market provides a persuasive argument for participating in the convention or in the conservation program. Since under this legislation, if approved by the Congress, the failure to participate in the conservation program would mean they cannot ship tuna of the regulated species to U.S. markets. Senator BARTLETT. You have mentioned yellowfin and skipjack tuna. Are there other kinds? Mr. HERRINGTON. Some bigeye in the area- Senator BARTLETT. Bigeye. Mr. HERRINGTON. These are fished particularly by the Japanese fishermen. There may be some other species taken in minor amounts. I prefer to have Dr. McHugh or Mr. McKernan reply to this question. Senator BARTLETT. Are these two of the most important species? Mr. HERRINGTON. By far the yellowfin and skipjack make upSenator BARTLETT. Of the two, which is the most important? Mr. HERRINGTON. The yellowfin has been up to the present, but the stocks of yellowfin have definite limitations as found by the Commission. So far the fishing of skipjack has not approached what can be supplied by these stocks, so this fishery can be expanded very considerable. Senator BARTLETT. How important is the U.S. market in terms of the total world market? Mr. HERRINGTON. May I answer this way: Most of the tuna caught by the American countries goes to the U.S. market. I can't give you the proportion of Japanese tuna that comes to the United States as against what goes to domestic markets and other markets. We can supply this information for the record if you like. Senator BARTLETT. I will ask some of the later witnesses, too. Dr. McHugh probably would have more information on that. Then I had a question here for you which I think I will refer for him or Mr. McKernan as to how you know that the program of research is so technically advanced. I won't ask you about that. You did say, though, that the catch of yellowfin has been greatly increased by the use of synthetic fiber, and also you mentioned power blocks. Why has synthetic fiber made such a tremendous difference? Mr. HERRINGTON. Well, the principal reason is through the use of the power block and synthetic fiber the pursing has become a much more effective way of taking yellowfin tuna than before. Through shifting to this better method of purse seine fishing their catch per day or catch per boat has increased a great deal over the catches in earlier years with the other type of fishing. Senator BARTLETT. Do you feel sure, positive, convinced, that the catch now exceeds that which should be permissible if the stock of fish are going to be maintained? Mr. HERRINGTON. May I answer this way. As I said before, nothing is absolutely certain in the field of fisheries. But the work of the Commission, the conclusions, they have reached and the analyses they have done is such as to convince me that probably the percentages are 99 or 999 out of a thousand, that their conclusion is that the stocks are being overfished is correct. Senator BARTLETT. You said here that the Commission has concluded that the 1962 catch should be limited to 83,000 tons. Do you |