Mr. SELDEN. Without objection, Mr. Curtiss' prepared statement will be included as a part of the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Curtiss follows:)

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

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Ralph E. Curtiss, legislative adviser, 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, publish the recommended quota, and describe the regulatory area.

We have not, at this time, completed drafting the 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 detail the specific area of the Eastern Pacific Ocean established by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission as the regulatory area. Such regulatory area would consist of the waters 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 clearance certificates by appropriate Government officials would be spelled out, and provisions for validating a clearance 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 close of the yellowfin season. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Commission, such incidental catch of yellowfin would be limited so as not to exceed 15 percent by weight of the total catch made on the trip.

In 1962 the annual quota for all nations would be fixed at 83,000 tons. When the catch reaches 78,000 tons, the season would be closed for yellowfin tuna fishing, although boats would still be permitted to fish for other species of tuna and would be allowed, during the closed season, to land not more than 15 percent by weight of yellowfin among the total catch of each boat. It is estimated that this would result in landings of an additional 5,000 tons of yellowfin.

Provision for reporting amounts of yellowfin taken must be included in the regulations. The data which would be required are now being furnished by the industry, but we would need such information on a more current basis in order to determine accurately the cutoff date for taking yellowfin. We have under consideration a method of catch reporting by radio as the date of filling the quota is approached. During most of the season, weekly reports will be sufficient.

The regulations would include provisions for the keeping of a logbook by each registered vessel to facilitate accurate reporting of catch returns. We would also make clear the categories of vessels exempt from the regulations. Such exempt vessels would be

1. Those engaged in fishing for scientific purposes.

2. Those documented as common carriers and not engaged in fishing.

3. Those of less than 10 gross tons.

4. Those engaged in sport fishing.

In our approach to this bill and to the regulations which would result if the bill becomes law, we are cognizant of the effect of such regulations upon this important industry as well as the conservation of the resource. Our thesis is that there should be the least possible regulation consonant with effective conservation. We realize that the best way to obtain compliance with such law and regulations is to demonstrate to the people affected that the law and regulations are designed for their benefit and for the benefit of the country as a whole. We have, therefore, conferred with the various segments of this fishing industry to obtain their ideas on the problem and the various solutions possible for it.

The language of the bill as it is now before this committee is the result of several conferences between representatives of the Departments of State and Interior and representatives of the industry which will be affected by it.

The principal and understandable concern of the industry in the matter of this bill and the regulations which would result from it, if enacted, is that there would be restrictions placed on the American fishing industry while nationals of other countries would be permitted to exploit the resources. There are three factual situations which this legislation must cover in order to apply restrictions in a manner which will be fair and equitable to our fishery:

First, it would be possible for nationals of other parties to the convention to exploit the resource at a time when American fishermen could not, if those party governments permitted them to fish contrary to the intent of the Commission's restrictions;

Second, it would be possible for nationals of countries not party to the convention to exploit the resource while Americans were denied access to the fishing if their Government permitted them to fish contrary to the intent of the Commission's restrictions; and

Third, it would be possible for nationals of the United States to evade control by fishing during the closed season and landing their catches in foreign countries. The provisions of S. 2568 are designed to cover such factual situations, and I will review them. However, before doing so, I would like to mention some other factors which tend to mitigate the problems. While it is true that the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission has no authority to regulate fishing activity, the parties to it do have such authority. Our contact with these governments, both at the regular meetings of the Commission and on a recent survey trip to each such country taken by representatives of the Departments of State and Interior, encourages us to believe that these countries will take the parallel action contemplated by the terms of the convention. Our Government is a party to other international agreements which contemplate regulatory action by the party governments rather than the Commission itself, and our experience with them has been completely satisfactory, not only to Government but also to the affected industries as well. Examples that come quickly to mind are the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, the North Pacific

Halibut Convention, the North Pacific Fisheries Convention, and the Great Lakes Fishery Convention.

The countries not party to the convention which are in a position substantially to exploit the resource are Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile and Japan. Direct contact has been had by our Government with these Governments to discuss this question, and all have given us reason to believe that their cooperation will be forthcoming. Colombia has requested membership in the Commission and Japan has expressed interest. In an official communication to our Government, Japan indicated that it would respect the yellowfin tuna conservation program of the Commission and would, so far as is practically possible, provide the Commission with current yellowfin tuna catch statistics for the area involved.

For these reasons, we believe the three possible threats to achievement of reasonable control of the tuna fishery will not actually materialize. However, there are further safeguards built into this bill to prevent unfair competition to our industry. The bill provides that once the Secretary of the Interior promulgates conservation regulations for the American industry, he then shall promulgate additional regulations, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to prohibit entry into the United States, from any country 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, of fish in any form of those species which are subject to regulation. This means that all yellowfin tuna taken from the regulatory area, regardless of when taken, will be denied entry into the United States from any country whose fishermen violate the closed season on yellowfin. This import prohibition would be an effective deterrent to fishing contrary to the intent of the regulations by nationals of the country where the importation would originate. In addition, the bill authorizes regulations to prevent the importation of yellowfin tuna taken contrary to the Commission recommendations and shipped to the United States through a third country. In the event of repeated and flagrant violations by any country, the importation of other species of tuna covered by the convention could be denied.

An additional safeguard built into this bill is the authority given to the Secretary of the Interior to suspend the conservation regulations in the event he finds that foreign fishing operations in the regulatory area are such as to constitute a serious threat to achievement of the recommendations of the Commission. In this regard, the Secretary of the Interior is to have the benefit of consultation with the Secretary of State and the U.S. representatives on the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

Some concern has been expressed by the industry that the large size of the regulatory area will make impractical constant surveillance of the fishing fleet while at sea. It is true that our enforcement will be shore-side inspections for the most part, but we do believe we will have considerable information concerning fishing activities in the area from our own American fishing fleet and from such patrols as we will be able to mount by cooperation with the Coast Guard. It should be noted that, in the import regulations contemplated by this legislation, the burden of proof will be on the foreign shipper to satisfy the Secretary of the Interior that yellowfin tuna offered for importation was not taken from the regulatory area during the closed season.

There was some objection to the forfeiture provisions of the original bill. It was believed that the liability for forfeiture of the fishing vessel would hinder the industry in the financing of fishing ventures. The bill in its present form meets this objective by providing only for forfeiture of the fish taken in violation of the regulations. Because of the high value of the fish, it is believed that the present forfeiture provisions are sufficient to obtain proper compliance with law and regulations.

In summary, we in the Department of the Interior believe that this bill will give to the Secretary of the Interior the authority he would need to fulfill the commitments of our Government for the conservation of the fishery according to the recommendations of the international body to which we hold membership. We believe that under such authority we can promulgate regulations to conserve the fishery and at the same time safeguard the interests of the important American industry affected. After considering the specific safeguards mentioned, it is to be noted that should it appear that regulation was unfair to our industry because of the acts of nationals of other countries over whom control was not effective, we have the ultimate safeguard that the Secretary of the

Interior can suspend the regulations and remove the restraint on the American industry.

I will be glad to attempt to answer any questions the committee may have concerning the part our Department would have in this international conservation effort.

Mr. CURTISS. The amendment of the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 at this time and in the form suggested by this bill would place the responsibility on the Department of the Interior for promulgation of regulations and for the enforcement of those regulations. We feel that this bill is necessary to respond to the conservation recommendations which have been made by the International Commission. We believe we should cooperate to implement the recommendations of the Commission to prevent damage to this valuable resource and to maintain the maximum sustainable yield from this very valuable fishery.

Under Interior's authority under the bill we would carry out the recommendations of the Commission, after those recommendations have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of State. The authority described in this bill is parallel to the authority which the Department of the Interior now has in connection with other international agreements. The authority is spelled out with a little more particularity perhaps in this bill, but basically it is the same authority that we have under other conventions.

Under the recommendations now approved-recommendations from the Tuna Commission-if the bill should be passed our regulations would cover a number of specific items and I would just briefly like to cover these with the committee if I may. The recommendation, as Mr. Taylor indicated, is for 83,000 tons for this year. And you understand, of course, that this quota would be adjusted annually by the Commission, depending upon the scientific data that each year produces.

We would begin the development of our regulations first by presenting them to the industry and the general public at a public hearing which is required under this proposed bill. They would be furnished the industry in advance of the hearing to give them ample opportunity to comment, suggest, and help in the promulgation of an equitable regulation. We would begin by defining the terms that would be used in the regulatory process. We would describe the regulatory area. The convention itself is very indefinite as to the convention area. It says, as a matter of fact, "the waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean fished by the nationals of the high contracting parties." There is a recommendation of the Commission on the regulatory area so that it can be tied down with more definiteness than in the convention. We have this morning furnished the committee with a very rough map, and I think that has been distributed, which will describe the area for you.

We would register the vessels that fish for tuna in the regulatory area and spell out the mechanics for the issuance of clearance certificates for these vessels. We would prescribe the method for annual publication of the yellowfin quota which will be recommended each year by the Commission. The closure of the season and the date the quota is reached would be provided for in the regulations. This date, of course, would be computed from the statistics showing the amount of yellowfin landed during the year plus the anticipated landings

from vessels then at sea. In this connection-that is vessels still at sea-the regulations will contemplate that even though the season may be closed some yellowfin will be caught throughout the year. It is impossible to fish for skipjack and not catch come yellowfin.

Mr. SELDEN. May I interrupt you here. Do these regulations apply only to yellowfin tuna?

Mr. CURTISS. Yes, sir; they will, because the Commission has recommended only that yellowfin be regulated and we are following precisely the recommendations of the international body.

Our regulations will provide for an incidental catch of 15 percent by weight of yellowfin. This means that the season would be closed when we have landed or have anticipated that the vessels then at sea will land 78,000 tons of yellowfin. Then by the application of the 15-percent incidental catch it is calculated by the Commission that an additional 5,000 tons will be caught during the balance of the year for their total recommended figure of 83,000 tons. Further, our regulations will provide for the reporting of yellowfin catches by the fishing vessels, for the maintenance of logbooks to facilitate checks and to insure accuracy in the development of fishery statistics, and finally certain classes of vessels will be exempt. We would propose to exempt those vessels fishing for scientific purposes, common carriers not engaged in fishing, vessels of less than 10 gross tons, and vessels engaged in the sport fishery. Believing that there should be the least possible regulation consistent with effective conservation we have, as Mr. Taylor indicated, conferred with our associates in the Department of State and with representatives of the industry, and the present language of the bill before you is the result of those conferences.

We know that the tuna industry is concerned that some restriction will be placed upon it while the nationals of other countries may be permitted to fish without restraint.

Three principal situations, I suppose, face us there: the nationals of other countries party to the convention being permitted to fish in the regulatory area by their government contrary to the intent of the Commission's recommendations; the same with nationals of countries not party to the convention; and then nationals of the United States who might fish there and evade the restriction by fishing during the closed season and landing their catch in foreign countries.

This bill and the regulations which would be promulgated under it would be designed to meet those three situations. However, there are other factors here which lead us to believe that nationals of other countries and our own nationals will not fish contrary to the recommendations of the Commission. The series of conferences that Mr. Taylor mentioned lead us to believe that these other governments are conservation minded and, insofar as they are able, that they will cooperate.

For example, contact was made with Japan by having Mr. Taylor and Mr. Don Johnson, the California area director of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, actually visit Japan, and as a result our Government has an official communication from the Japanese Government in which they advise that with respect to the yellowfin tuna conservation program they would respect this program, and that further, they would provide the Commission, so far as is practicable, with current catch statistics for the area involved.