tained, and I understand that I am now Chairman of the whole Commission.

Senator BARTLETT. That is fine. Are your members subjected to or honored by, according to the viewpoint of the individual, advice and consent of the Senate?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, I am not sure about that. I'm sorry that I must confess my ignorance on that point. I don't recall that the position that I humbly occupy has been subjected as yet to the approval of your august body, Senator.

Senator BARTLETT. In any case, I have interrupted you long enough. I want to hear what you have to say now.

Mr. BENNETT. Not at all, I welcome any interruptions.

I want to say at the outset that I appear here not as an expert or scientific witness; consulting with other persons who were scheduled to present matters before the committee I am reasonably assured that the scientific basis for the findings and recommendations of the Commission, as well as the proposed regulatory features contemplated by the legislation, will be adequately presented by properly qualified experts.

I am a lawyer. I have practiced law in San Francisco, except for war service and a short period of time in State service, for some 42 years. Thirty-five years ago I became executive officer and counsel for the California Fish and Game Commission. Later I was appointed a member from California of the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, a tristate body-Washington, Oregon, and California. I served as a member of that commission for a number of years. In one way or another I have been interested, or perhaps I should say more accurately, exposed to some of the practical problems of fishery conservation and management of both inland fisheries and commercial fisheries of the Pacific coast for a third of a century. The only west coast fishery problems with which I have not had firsthand knowledge pertains to your area, Senator, the salmon fishery of the North Pacific, and I wish simply to present this and leave this thought with your committee.

My observation over this more than a third of a century has been that most commercial fisheries and most sport fisheries at some time or another require regulation and control. It has also been my observation, and I think this view is shared by most people that look at these matters objectively and practically, that adequate regulation and control are necessary in order to preserve the fisheries, particularly commercial fisheries, at their maximum sustained yields. This should be the objective of government control when and if it is necessary.

Regulation usually comes too late. It comes either after a fishery has been destroyed or depleted to the extent where it is a long-range, if not an impossible, task ever to replace it, or it comes at a time where very stringent conservation restrictions are required, which take a long period of time, before the fishery may be restored to its maximum sustainable yield.

I leave this point of view with the committee because almost inevitably in State legislatures, and I have seen it here in the Congress, there is always some opposition to any interposition of government regulation whether it be by the Federal Government or the State.

I say that without criticism of those who present opposition. It is apparently an inherent American tendency to resist and put off as long as possible the intervention of government where it may impose restrictions on the free play of private enterprise. But unfortunately that strenuous opposition which has occurred as you know in the salmon industry, and has occurred in the sardine industry, arises whenever regulation is proposed. The sardine fishery at one time was the principal fishery of the United States in tonnage but now is practically a dead duck, a very minor factor in the fisheries of the eastern Pacific American waters. This decline may have come about through the reluctance on the part of those who are directly concerned to have restrictions imposed.

I do not have any direct personal interest in the tuna fishery or any other fishery. Perhaps if I did I might view with some reluctance measures that would at least carry the threat of interference with the free play of my enterprise or industry. But, after all, that is the reason that we have governments. Today when we view with some concern the problems that are posed with constant expansion of our industrial and economic developments and particularly where competition or other factors develop new and increased means or methods of taking wildlife and fish, including commercial fish, there has come a time in many instances where it has been necessary for government to intervene.

We are dealing here, as the chairman has pointed out, with an extremely valuable fishery. It is true that at the present time the American sector of that fishery is the largest. American fishing boats take the major part of the yellowfin tuna of the eastern Pacific Ocean waters. Apparently that is due to the fine enterprise, the element of risk and progress, which has characterized American industry and American fisheries.

We are dealing, however, with a fishery in which other nations have some interest, and I think the American segment of the industry, or at least the major part of it, is enlightened enough today to realize that the time will inevitably come when some measure of control is necessary to preserve this fishery if for no other reason than the economic benefits which they hope to derive.

The Commission has functioned for 12 years. Its purposes are set forth in the convention. We are not a regulatory body; our province was to thoroughly investigate the tuna fishery to determine whether measures of control were necessary and if so what measures would be feasible.

Now, of course, there are always problems when you seek to deal with a resource or a situation involving the interest of more than one nation. I think some members of your committee are familiar with that problem as it has existed on the Pacific coast. The U.S. section has an advisory committee consisting of 15 members representing, we believe, a fair cross section and every element of the American fishery industry concerned with yellowfin tuna.

We think that we have a very fine advisory committee. During the last year our Commission—that is, the U.S. section—has had several meetings with our advisory committee. One such meeting was held in Long Beach, Calif., approximately a month ago.

During the past year extensive discussions have been held between the Commission, representatives of the State Department, representatives of the Department of the Interior, and representatives of the industry concerning the basis for the Commission's findings. These findings were that the time has come when some measure of control is necessary to protect the yellowfin tuna fishery of the eastern Pacific waters. I do not mean to infer, Mr. Chairman, that there is unanimity on the part of the industry or those people who may be subject to regulation under the provisions of this proposed legislation. But I want to assure the committee that the members of the U.S. section have very seriously sought their advice and listened to their arguments, pro and con, and we hope that the members of your committee will accept as a fact that the members of this Commission, who serve without pay, the members of the U.S. section, have not sought to jam anything down the throat of American industry. On the contrary, our objective is to protect the long-range solvency of that section of our American fishery that depends upon the yellowfin tuna of the eastern Pacific Ocean waters.

Senator BARTLETT. Does that conclude your statement?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. I want to thank you very much, Chairman Bennett, for your appearance here. We are very glad that you were in town on other matters and the committee has taken judicial notice of the fact that the members of the Commission serve without pay. I would like to put to you only two questions.

You are absolutely convinced, then, that a measure of this kind is necessary to make as sure as possible that the stocks of yellowfin tuna will be maintained?

Mr. BENNETT. Categorically, I should answer that question "Yes." Of course, as the chairman realizes, the lay members of the Commission must depend to a large extent upon the advice and findings of our scientific staff. We think we have an excellent scientific staff, headed by Dr. Schaefer, whom we selected initially as the man we felt best qualified to head up the scientific research work of this Commission. He, in turn, is assisted by a staff of experts.

We have our main laboratory at La Jolla, Calif., in connection with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. We have field stations in Costa Rica, Panama, and in Ecuador.

Twelve years of work have gone into the findings of the Commission, and the Commission has determined that the time has come when some measure of control is necessary.

It is difficult, of course, to set forth an ideal plan that won't hurt anybody, will satisfy everybody, but it is felt that this proposed legislation, giving a certain degree of elasticity to the regulatory process whereby our executive departments of the Government, both State and Interior, will have some measure of discretion, that the approach toward what the Commission has found or believes today is a necessary step may be best achieved.

Senator BARTLETT. Are you also convinced, Chairman Bennett, that the American market for yellowfin tuna is so important in terms of total consumption that nonmember nations would voluntarily subscribe to those inhibitions placed upon nationals or member nations?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, of course, Mr. Chairman, I don't know that anyone can be completely sure of what will happen in the uncertain future. There are so many contingent factors including the status of international relations and other things that may conceivably change the picture as time goes on, but I will say this, that our Commission has not found a better approach than is presented in the proposed legislation. It is believed, too, and this has been done after a great deal of consideration by representatives of industry, members of the Commission, of the U.S. section, I should say, and the representatives of the Department of State and the Department of the Interior, that the procedures proposed and the provisions contained in the present draft of Senate bill 2568 will best assure that there will be reasonable, if not strict observance of the overall plan of conservation and control. Now, I don't know that I can say anything more or give any further assurance that it will be completely effectuated.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, I think that is a good statement. I would want to say for my own part, without taking a position for or against this bill, naturally, in advance of hearing all the testimony, that if the United States were to take the lead as it is now seeking to take the lead in a broad conservation measure, and I think the United States has had an excellent record, generally speaking, in respect to conservation of fishery resources, and other nations were not to follow suit and thereby create a condition whereby our people were advised to go out on the high seas and join with the nationals of other countries in fishing out completely a resource, a resource that otherwise could last forever, that there would be, I should think, pretty heavy morals advanced against the violating nations.

Now, Chairman Bennett, I am going to read into the record the language in chapter 16, title 16, United States Code, in relation to the membership of the Tuna Commission so it will be a part of the printed record-or, better yet, to save time, I will ask the staff to supply that to the reporter.

(The matter referred to follows:)

COMMISSIONER; NUMBER, APPOINTMENT, AND QUALIFICATION.

The United States shall be represented on the two commissions by a total of not more than four United States Commissioners, who shall be appointed by the President, serve as such during his pleasure, and receive no compensation for their services as such Commissioners. Of such Commissioners

(a) not more than one shall be a person residing elsewhere than in a State whose vessels maintain a substantial fishery in the areas of the conventions; (b) at least one of the Commissioners who are such legal residents shall be a person chosen from the public at large, and who is not a salaried employee of a State or of the Federal Government; and

(c) at least one shall be an officer of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (16 U.S.C. 952).

Senator BARTLETT. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)

Senator BARTLETT. On the record.
If you are ready, Mr. McKernan.

STATEMENT OF DONALD L. McKERNAN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. McKERNAN. I have a prepared statement which I will submit for the record and paraphrase parts of the statement, if you prefer.

Senator BARTLETT. The prepared statement will be printed in the record in full text, and we will be happy to follow your suggestion. (Full text of statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF DONALD L. MCKERNAN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Donald L. McKernan, Director of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Department of the Interior. Amendment of the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 by S. 2568 in its present form would place responsibilities on the Department of the Interior for promulgation of regulations and for certain enforcement activities. The Department of the Interior recommends the enactment of S. 2568 as a necessary step in the conservation action which must be taken if the U.S. Government is to respond to the recommendations of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. We believe our Government should cooperate to implement the recommendations of the Commission in order to prevent damage to this valuable resource and to maintain the maximum sustained yield from the fishery.

If S. 2568 becomes law, the amended Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations to carry out the recommendations of the Commission after such recommendations were approved by both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Interior. The bill contains language which indicates the various forms such regulations might take. This authority, while described in more detail in this bill, parallels the authority now held by the Secretary of the Interior for the promulgation of regulations to implement the findings of the Halibut Commission, the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, and the International Whaling Commission. It is, therefore, the type of authority with which we have had some experience and for which there is ample precedent.

In the current situation, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission has recommended the fixing of a specific quota for the amount of yellowfin tuna that can be taken from the convention area during the current year. The regulations initially established would, therefore, select this species for regulation, establish the recommended quota, and describe the regulatory area.

We have not, at this time, drafted proposed regulations since there is in fact no authority for such action. We have, however, planned for such regulations in general terms, and we believe the committee may be interested in a general description of the type of regulations which would be submitted for public hearing. In passing, let me point out that the bill provides for public participation in the rulemaking process through submission of written data, views, or arguments, and oral presentation at a public hearing. After defining the principal terms which would be used throughout the regulation, we would set out in retail the specific area of the eastern Pacific Ocean established by the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission as the regulatory area. Such regulatory area would consist of the water of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of North America, Central America, and South America which, to the best of our present knowledge, includes the geographic distribution of the stocks of yellowfin tuna of interest to the Commission.

Our proposed regulations would provide for the registration of vessels fishing for yellowfin tuna in the regulatory area. The mechanics for the issuance of registration certificates by appropriate Government officials would be spelled out, and provisions for validating a registration certificate prior to departure for each fishing trip would be included.

There would be a section to prescribe the method for publishing annually the yellowfin quota as recommended by the Commission and approved by the party governments. Such publication would be the medium by which the industry would be advised of the official annual quota, which would be adjusted with appropriate recommendations each year by the Commission.

The regulations would include a section providing for automatic closure of the yellowfin season on the date on which the quota would be reached, as determined by the Commission through its Director of Investigations. This determination would be based upon reported yellowfin landings, plus anticipated landings by vessels still at sea on the date of the determination. The regulations would provide for legal notice of that date to the public. The regulations would also permit the incidental taking of yellowfin during a fishing trip after the