have any idea, Mr. Herrington, what the catch of this particular species of tuna was 25 years ago?

Mr. HERRINGTON. I don't have the figure, but it was quite small. I don't recall what the catch was.

Senator BARTLETT. The take has been increasing steadily year by year.

Mr. HERRINGTON. Steadily. It increased before the years of World War II; during the war as a result of the Navy taking over most of the big tuna clippers the catch dropped off; it again increased rapidly after the war with the building of new boats. It reached a high level in 1950, then primarily, I believe because of competition with imports, the catch fell off somewhat during the intervening years. It began to come up again about 3 years ago with the shift over to purse seine.

Senator BARTLETT. Has it been rising steadily since then?
Mr. HERRINGTON. Yes; quite rapidly.

Senator BARTLETT. You said that recommendation relating to 83,000 tons has been accepted by the U.S. Government. Again, is that in accordance with the authority granted by the 1950 law?

Mr. HERRINGTON. Yes, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. Does section 2 have the effect of giving the Secretaries of State and Interior veto power over the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission? Please refer to your statement at the bottom of page 3 and the top of page 4.

Let me rephrase that question if you have any doubt as to what I

meant.

The Commission may recommend but the Secretaries of these two Departments of our Federal Government don't have to follow those recommendations necessarily? Is that a correct conclusion on my

part?

Mr. HERRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, the Commission makes general recommendations; it does not include how these recommendations should be put into effect.

Senator BARTLETT. Or if they should be put into effect?

Mr. HERRINGTON. Well, if the recommendations are accepted by the Government of the United States then we undertake the responsibility of putting them into effect.

Senator BARTLETT. But that wouldn't be any different from any other authority granted to a commission, I suppose; a commission does not have authority on its own to make a recommendation as to anything of this kind and then effectuate it, does it?

Mr. HERRINGTON. No, sir, not unless this authority is spelled out in the convention itself, and that is not the case in this situation. Senator BARTLETT. Do you know any such?

Mr. HERRINGTON. I believe in the case of the sockeye salmon. The regulations themselves are carried out by the State of Washington and by Canada, and enforced by these two Governments, but the Commission goes further in determining the specific regulations in that case.

Senator BARTLETT. That isn't true, though, in respect to the North Pacific Treaty with Canada, Japan, and the United States participating?

Mr. HERRINGTON. No, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. Again, on page 4, you said that the Secretary of the Interior would be able to suspend the application of regulations if he made a determination that foreign fishing was unregulated and constituted a serious threat to objectives sought by the Commission. All right, what if he does suspend such regulations, is it every man for himself? They go in there at that time and fish until perhaps there are no yellowfin tuna left?

Mr. HERRINGTON. If the regulations are suspended, yes; then we fish the same as we are now; there will be no limitation on the total amount to be taken from the area.

Senator BARTLETT. Do you have a notion, Mr. Herrington, of the dollar value on an annual basis of the yellowfin taken from this area? Or would you prefer that I defer that question for another witness? Mr. HERRINGTON. I would like to defer that one. I could get a general figure for 217,000 tons taken last year. I think it would average around $300 a ton; that would be the rough figure but not the precise one. The total catch of yellowfin in the area in 1961 was 217,000 tons, as determined by the Commission.

Senator BARTLETT. You say times 300?

Mr. HERRINGTON. The price would run between $275 or $300 a ton. There are other people present, Mr. Chairman, who are better able to answer this question.

Senator BARTLETT. I will make this statement, and a future witness can correct me. If in general you are correct, we are talking about something valued on the order of $80 million here.

Mr. HERRINGTON. Yes, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. In other words, this is big business.
Mr. HERRINGTON. This is very big business.

Senator BARTLETT. Why, on page 6, did you make specific reference to Puerto Rico?

Mr. HERRINGTON. Puerto Rico is the location of at least one cannery; I believe others are being built there by U.S. tuna companies and a considerable amount of tuna is landed by U.S. tuna vessels in Puerto Rican territory.

Senator BARTLETT. Do you mean here that the employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico would be given this authority? Mr. HERRINGTON. Yes, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. I wonder if the amended bill specifies the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico instead of merely mentioning Puerto Rico. Yes, it does.

Are there any local officials in American Samoa?

Mr. HERRINGTON. Yes, sir; I'm quite sure there are. (See p. 116.) Senator BARTLETT. You might check on that.

I wonder why it is these other countries that aren't members which you have mentioned didn't join from the outset, leaving aside Peru? Mr. HERRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I think quite likely they were not very much interested at the time. In 1949 the amount of tuna caught by the countries was much less than at present, and that is probably the chief reason why they weren't interested.

Senator BARTLETT. If you will bear with me for a minute while I read a letter I haven't seen before, I might want to ask you a question with reference to that.

Let me read some of this aloud, Mr. Herrington. It's from George Johansen, secretary-treasurer of the Alaska Fishermen's Union, addressed to Chairman Magnuson. A copy came to me this morning, too, but I didn't have an opportunity to read it. I don't know exactly the interest of Mr. Johansen, who certainly is a specialist and expert in fishery subjects in tuna on behalf of the Alaska Fishermen's Union, because tuna would not constitute a very large fish catch in Alaska, but we do know, too, that he has a general interest in this broad usbject. He says, and I'm quoting now:

The bill, which, on its face, is a conservation measure, has features which in my opinion will impose hardships upon American producers, without achieving desired results. It seems to us that the bill is trying to regulate a fishery which takes place wholly in international waters, and the bill is applicable to American fishermen only. If an international treaty or agreement

Mr. Herrington, I'm going to hand you a copy of this so you can follow it with me because I'm going to ask you a question or two about it-This is the second sentence I'm starting to read now in the second paragraph:

If an international treaty or agreement had been arrived at with such countries which may also be fishing for the species involved in international waters, the bill would have considerable merit. In the absence, to our knowledge, of any international agreements, it is simply a matter of restricting American fishermen and conserving international stocks of tuna for the benefit of foreign nations. The Secretary of the Interior can suspend regulations, if such are not obtaining results desired

He can also deny nations from fishing—

but, the burden of proof is on the United States, and judging past performances, the only ones who would be jeopardized would be U.S. citizens. As an example, I do not believe it would have been possible to obtain an agreement from the Pacific Coast States in regard to a ban on fishing with nets for salmon outside of present territorial waters, if it had not been for the fact that we did have a treaty with Japan which recognizes certain conservation principles in relation to salmon, even though the treaty is not wholly satisfactory in this respect. We do not know of any nation other than Japan which is fishing salmon on the high seas at the present time. Therefore, restrictions imposed by our Government to restrict fishing for salmon are just and proper under present circumstances.

It appears to us that to place restrictions on the tuna fishermen such as envisioned in S. 2568 without any agreement with Japan or other countries which are engaged in tuna fishing, is not fair to American fishermen who are constantly taking a beating because of our fishery policies, which seem to work against our people.

Prior to enactment of this bill, we would strongly recommend that the Departments of Interior and State consider discussions with such other countries as may be fishing on the tuna in question, to obtain an agreement which would bring everyone into the conservation effort we are trying to achieve. After this has been done, it would be time to consider a bill to implement such international agreements, and I am sure that you will find U.S. fishermen completely cooperative on any measure that will provide conservation by all nations concerned.

We are also concerned with the provisions in the bill which would set aside ordinary processes accorded U.S. citizens, and make it possible for zealous Government officials to board any vessel without search warrants or due process established by the Constitution.

Due to your long experience on fishery legislation, I know you will recognize the necessity of having all nations committed before establishing laws which would be discriminatory to American fishermen. I do not believe it is possible to find a workable solution to the problem of conservation in international waters without an agreement across the board with such nations as may be involved. We therefore oppose this legislation in its present form and ask that as chairman

of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, you use your good office to point out the need for overall conservation.

It is reasonable to assume that producers in southern California are more in favor of sound conservation efforts than anyone else because their livelihood is involved. Their opposition to this legislation stems from the fact that they are convinced that in the final analysis, the burden of conservation will be on the shoulders of the United States only.

(The above-mentioned letter follows:)

ALASKA FISHERMEN'S UNION,
Seattle, Wash., May 21, 1962.

Re S. 2568.

Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: S. 2568 deals with conservation of yellowfin and skipjack tuna. The bill, which, on its face, is a conservation measure, has features which in my opinion will impose hardships upon American producers, without achieving desired results.

It seems to us that the bill is trying to regulate a fishery which takes place wholly in international waters, and the bill is applicable to American fishermen only. If an international treaty or agreement had been arrived at with such countries which may also be fishing for the species involved in international waters, the bill would have considerable merit. In the absence, to our knowledge, of any international agreements, it is simply a matter of restricting American fishermen and conserving international stocks of tuna for the benefit of foreign nations.

The Secretary of the Interior can suspend regulations, if such are not obtaining results desired. Also, the Secretary can deny entry of fish from nations disregarding our conservation efforts. But, the burden of proof is on the United States, and judging past performances, the only ones who would be jeopardized would be U.S. citizens. As an example, I do not believe it would have been possible to obtain an agreement from the Pacific Coast States in regard to a ban on fishing with nets for salmon outside of present territorial waters, if it had not been for the fact that we did have a treaty with Japan which recognizes certain conservation principles in relation to salmon, even though the treaty is not wholly satisfactory in this respect. We do not know of any nation other than Japan which is fishing salmon on the high seas at the present time. Therefore, restrictions imposed by our Government to restrict fishing for salmon are just and proper under present circumstances.

It appears to us that to place restrictions on the tuna fishermen such as envisioned in S. 2568 without any agreement with Japan or other countries which are engaged in tuna fishing, is not fair to American fishermen who are constantly taking a beating because of our fishery policies, which seem to work against our people.

Prior to enactment of this bill, we would strongly recommend that the Departments of Interior and State consider discussions with such other countries as may be fishing on the tuna in question, to obtain an agreement which would bring everyone into the conservation effort we are trying to achieve. After this has been done, it would be time to consider a bill to implement such international agreements, and I am sure that you will find U.S. fishermen completely cooperative on any measure that will provide conservation by all nations concerned.

We are also concerned with the provisions in the bill which would set aside ordinary processes accorded U.S. citizens, and make it possible for zealous Government officials to board any vessel without search warrants or due process established by the Constitution.

Due to your long experience on fishery legislation, I know you will recognize the necessity of having all nations committed before establishing laws which would be discriminatory to American fishermen. I do not believe it is possible to find a workable solution to the problem of conservation in international waters without an agreement across the board with such nations as may be involved. We therefore oppose this legislation in its present form and ask that as chairman of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, you use your good office to point out the need for overall conservation.

It is reasonable to assume that producers in southern California are more in favor of sound conservation efforts than anyone else because their livelihood

85667-62- -3

is involved. Their opposition to this legislation stems from the fact that they are convinced that in the final analysis, the burden of conservation will be on the shoulders of the United States only.

Sincerely yours,

GEORGE JOHANSEN,
Secretary-Treasurer.

Senator BARTLETT. That ends the letter which I have read in full text. I would advise Mr. Johansen of one thing and I will ask you to comment upon the points he raised in his letter.

of

I think one of the major achievements made here in the last couple years has been to change the name of this very committee from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to the Committee on Commerce, and we shall so advise Mr. Johansen so you won't have to write out those extra words any more either.

Now, would you care to discuss what Mr. Johansen has to say?

Mr. HERRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I believe that some of the questions and doubts that Mr. Johansen has indicated in the letter are answered by the statement I made earlier, and after consultation with the advisory group of the tuna industry we have sought to write into this bill protection against having a conservation program which applies only to U.S. fishermen.

If

Now, we have in the past approached these other countries with respect to their interest in adhering to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Convention. They have not seen fit to do so in some cases. we waited until they all joined the Convention it would very well be that the tuna stock would be in much more serious condition than at present. We feel that, failing membership of all of those who fish in this area for these species of tuna in the Convention, we can proceed in the way we have proposed in this legislation to be prepared to regulate American fishermen, and to prohibit importation into the United States of tuna caught by those who do not cooperate.

In the final analysis, if our efforts to get the cooperation of all these countries fail to the extent that the conservation program is seriously jeopardized, we would suspend the regulations on U.S. fishermen, so they will not be required to operate in a way other than that of their competitors.

We believe that this provides the best possibility of getting an effective conservation program and at the same time giving our fishermen an equal opportunity to operate on the seas with those of other countries.

Now, I would like to have an opportunity to perhaps submit something further on giving this letter of Mr. Johansen's further study. Senator BARTLETT. I wish you would, Mr. Herrington; I wish that you have a further statement to make in connection with this letter you submit it and the record will be kept open so you may do so.

if

I call your attention to that paragraph of this letter in which he says that the constitutional processes would be set aside, so that zealous Government officials might board vessels without search warrants. or due process established by the Constitution.

Mr. HERRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we have provision of this sort in other legislation to make it possible to effectively enforce certain regulations with respect to fishing operations.