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 contemplated 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.

As I mentioned earlier, the executive branch worked closely with the U.S. tuna industry in formulating a suitable draft of legislation. Every effort has been made to meet the needs 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 have the general support of that industry for the tuna conservation program and for S. 2568, as amended, including the further changes hereinbefore noted.

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.

To conclude, with me today is Mr. Ralph E. Curtiss of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and Dr. J. L. McHugh, one of the U.S. representatives on the Commission. Dr. McHugh is also 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.

I shall now be happy to try to answer any questions you may have on this proposed legislation.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Taylor, I think it would be of interest to the committee to know what countries are members of this Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

Mr. TAYLOR. The original signatories are the United States and Costa Rica. Panama adhered pursuant to an adherence provision in the treaty, as did Ecuador last year.

Colombia has asked to join but her membership has not been perfected.

Mr. SELDEN. How does this Commission affect other countries on the Pacific side that would be fishing in these waters?

Mr. TAYLOR. Countries that are not parties to the convention have no legal obligation to observe its provisions, of course. Recognizing

this, we had representatives visit each of the countries concerned; that is, those nonmember countries whose nationals fish in a substantial way in the area-including Japan-I visited Japan myselfwith a view to enlisting their voluntary support for conservation purposes. The preliminary indications are that they will voluntarily cooperate. One informal governmental meeting of members and nonmembers has already been held in Quito in May of this year and another is in prospect, now that we have a proposed law that we can speak to them about.

Mr. SELDEN. What countries fish in this area and catch tunafish in any substantial amounts that are not members of the Commission? Mr. TAYLOR. Japan, which is primarily interested in the bigeye tuna in the area, but whose incidental catch of yellowfin we are primarily concerned with here.

In this hemisphere Peru is the principal producer of fish from the area which is not a member of the Tropical Tuna Commission. Colombia and I think possibly Costa Rica, to some extent. Certainly Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Chile to some extent off the northern part of the coast.

Mr. SELDEN. Is it possible to carry out these conservation measures with some of the countries who fish in the area agreeing to certain controls and others not agreeing to these controls?

Mr. TAYLOR. We are convinced that it is, sir, and on the contingency that it is not, have incorporated in this proposed law a provision to the effect that the Secretary of the Interior shall suspend the application of the regulations against U.S. fishermen in the event nonmembers operate in a manner as would tend to defeat the conservation program, so that our people will not be placed at a competitive disadvantage.

Mr. SELDEN. Is that included in this legislation?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Beckworth.

Mr. BECK WORTH. No questions.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Mailliard.

Mr. MAILLIARD. I have just one question, Mr. Chairman.

You mentioned that the Secretary can suspend the regulations against the U.S. fishermen. The embargo provisions here-how does that work and against whom?

Mr. TAYLOR. I will be glad to speak to that, although I would prefer that the representative of the Interior Department which is the one to place the embargo in effect would speak principally on it.

I will say briefly, sir, that the embargo would be promulgated at the time the Secretary of the Interior promulgates regulations-conservation regulations applicable to our nationals. It would have application only if certain circumstances and certain conditions prevailed. It would have application to a country only if it fished in a certain way. The embargo would be there.

Mr. MAILLIARD. The embargo would be effective against signatories and nonsignatories?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is true and I would think that it was aimed primarily at nonsignatories because we expect the signatories to live up to their treaty obligations.

I would like to correct one statement, sir-not correct it but elaborate upon it a bit. That is, the suspension of regulations as appropriate because of noncooperation by a nonmember, by the Secretary of the Interior, is with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and, I believe, after consultation with him and after consultation with the U.S. commissioners. This is a joint determination as to whether the regulations against our people should be lifted.

Mr. MAILLIARD. This would be done only if the embargo procedures fail?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is true. It is a step-by-step process. If the embargo did not do the job, ultimately we have some way of relieving the situation for our fishermen. It would be an unhappy development from the standpoint of the resource because it would be a freefor-all with no restrictions, no restraints, and no resource ultimately, commercially speaking.

We cannot expect certain people to be under regulations when others ignore it on a substantial scale.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Can you tell us how closely this adheres or in what principal manner it departs from other similar conservation agreements?

Mr. TAYLOR. The principal difference between this conservation regime and the traditional conservation regime is that it is aimed at preventing overfishing rather than restoring the resource after it has been overfished.

Over the period of 12 years that the Commission has been in existence it has conducted a great deal of research with regard to the population of the fishes, the migratory habits; they have tagged fish, they have made blood studies, and they have reached the conclusion that the yellowfin stock can withstand just so much fishing effort. At the beginning here, if we start controlling the catch now-it was overfished a bit last year-but if we start controlling it now we won't have a depleted resource which we will have to build up again.

Mr. MAILLIARD. How does this compare, for example, with the halibut conservation, and so forth? Is this a similar pattern?

Mr. TAYLOR. Our fishery commissions, except for the Northwest Atlantic Commission, follow a similar pattern. In the case of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries there is a series of panels. The membership on the panels depends upon where you fish in the area, so only those on the panel are interested in the areas relating to that panel. This follows the regular conservation procedures by the United States, which is probably the leading country in this field along with Canada. It departs in one important respect in that it looks to prevention of overfishing rather than restoration of the resource after it has been brought down.

Mr. SELDEN. Who are the U.S. members?

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, Dr. McHugh here is the Federal member. Eugene Bennett is the chairman of the U.S. section and also chairman of the Commission this year. He is a San Francisco attorney, as I am sure you know.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Yes. A constituent, and good friend.

Mr. TAYLOR. Robert Jones from Gearhart, Oreg., who has been a long-time member of the Oregon Fish and Game Commission; and a new member, John Driscoll, from San Diego, has just been appointed.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Thank you.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Whalley.

Mr. WHALLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Taylor, it says here that in 1949 apparently Costa Rica and the United States jointly formed the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and that Panama and Ecuador pretty much lived up to the agreement, as well as Colombia.

Wouldn't it have been easier to have had Japan, Peru, and these other countries join the Commission? We are interested in whether they were approached to come into this Commission.

Mr. TAYLOR. We have repeatedly invited them to attend the annual meetings of the Commission in an observer capacity. They have been invited to join. All that is necessary to their membership is the assent of the existing membership, which would be readily forthcoming, I am sure.

We were encouraged at the last meeting of the Commission in Quito last May. We feel that Mexico is seriously considering joining the Commission and that would be another important step.

Mr. WHALLEY. Which country is principally involved in tuna? Would it be the most active in tuna fishing?

Mr. TAYLOR. The United States is the country principally concerned with the tuna fishing.

Mr. WHALLEY. Of the others?

Mr. TAYLOR. Peru and Mexico, and next, Ecuador.

Mr. WHALLEY. Does this Commission have annual meetings?
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.

Mr. WHALLEY. You would think over 13 years' time you could have persuaded those countries singly, like Mexico, and eventually you would have all of them as members. That would seem to be the way to get the best results.

Mr. TAYLOR. I could explain that, but not on the record, sir, very readily.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Let's go off the record.

Mr. SELDEN. We are not in executive session.

Mr. TAYLOR. From my knowledge of the persons present here, I would be pleased to make an explanation here.

Mr. SELDEN. We will go off the record temporarily.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SELDEN. Are there any further questions the members present would like to ask Mr. Taylor?

If not, our second witness is Mr. Ralph E. Curtiss, legislative adviser to the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Department of the Interior.

Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

STATEMENT OF RALPH E. CURTISS, LEGISLATIVE ADVISER, BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. CURTISS. Mr. Chairman, I am Ralph E. Curtiss, legislative adviser to the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Department of the Interior. I have a prepared statement which I furnished the committee, but I am prepared to summarize unless the committee would prefer that it be read in its entirety.

88007-62