We are hopeful, then, that we will have the cooperation of all of these other governments. However, there are safeguards built into the bill to prevent unfair competition to our industry. The Secretary of the Interior, having promulgated conservation regulations, is required under the terms of this bill to promulgate immediately regulations which would prohibit the entry into the United States of fish caught in the regulatory area contrary to the spirit of the convention. This means that all yellowfin tuna taken from this 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. We think this would be an important deterrent. In addition, the bill authorizes regulations to prevent the importation of yellowfin tuna, taken contrary to the Commission recommendations, shipped to the United States through a third country.

In the event of repeated and flagrant violations by any country our Secretary is authorized to deny the importation of the other species of tuna covered by the convention.

Now in addition to these safeguards, we have, of course, the one that Mr. Taylor did mention and that is, failing success in the conservation movement through the fault of some foreign country, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized under the bill to lift the restrictions on American fishing.

We feel that this bill will give to our Secretary the authority that he would need to fulfill the commitments of our Government for the conservation of this fishery according to the recommendations which have been made by the Commission.

Mr. Chairman, this is really a short, sort of hit-the-highspots of our prepared statement. If I can answer any questions, I will be glad to, or furnish any material that I cannot furnish today, later for the record.

Mr. SELDEN. You mentioned, in reply to my earlier question, that only the yellowfin tuna were affected by this legislation because the Commission had recommended that they only be affected.

Mr. CURTISS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SELDEN. However, if I understand this legislation correctly, it does contain authorization for the regulation of other species if the Commission so recommends. Am I correct in that statement? Mr. CURTISS. This is correct.

Mr. SELDEN. In other words, no further action by Congress will be necessary in the event the Commission decides that other species of tuna should be regulated?

Mr. CURTISS. The only other action by Congress would be the annual appropriation act.

Mr. SELDEN. No authorizing legislation would be necessary?

Mr. CURTISS. No further authorizing legislation would be necessary. Mr. SELDEN. Can you tell me what percentage of the yellowfin tuna catch is made by the countries who are parties to and bound by the Commission's recommendations?

Mr. McHUGH. About 95 percent. I think the State Department has the accurate figures. The United States makes about 95 percent of the total catch from this area.

Mr. SELDEN. And all other countries make only 5 percent of the catch?

Mr. McHUGH. That is about right.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Beckworth?

Mr. BECKWORTH. How difficult would it be to police this kind of arrangement if it should become a reality?

Mr. CURTISS. We have in mind at the present time a shoreside en forcement program, having in mind other fisheries where we have fishing far at sea, with deliveries to the U.S. ports the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, for example. We have shoreside enforcement program there supplemented to a small extent by surveys at sea, but from our experience there we are inclined to believe that we can control this by shoreside inspections.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Do you conceive this would cost the U.S. Government a lot more money? What are your thoughts as to additional cost, if any? I refer to dollars, round figures.

Mr. CURTISS. Additional cost, $75,000.

Mr. BECKWORTH. How would that $75,000 be spent?

Mr. CURTISS. We would put on five persons. Do you want this in detail?

Mr. BECKWORTH. Yes; in detail.

Mr. CURTISS. We would put on a program supervisor at our area office in California. We would have three fishery management agents of the same type we now have in connection with other enforcement on both coasts, and one clerk-stenographer.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Would these people do a lot of traveling?
Mr. CURTISS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BECKWORTH. How much do you estimate the cost of travel would be annually?

Mr. CURTISS. $9,600.

Mr. BECKWORTH. That brings this thought to my mind: Do our people in Japan, who represent our Government there, have up-todate facts and figures about the fishing problems for our country from the Japanese standpoint at all times?

Mr. TAYLOR. The answer is "No, sir." They have been slow getting tuna statistics to us in the past. This has hampered the Commission in its collection of needed statistics so as to be able to make its recommendation.

Mr. BECKWORTH. You mean the Japanese?

Mr. TAYLOR. The Japanese. They have offered to accelerate their furnishing of statistics through our Embassy to us for the sake of this. program, now that we have a conservation program, which is dependent on current statistics.

Mr. BECKWORTH. How many people do we have attached to the American Embassy in Japan who are trying to help solve the fishing problem or the problem that relates to the fisheries industry now? Mr. TAYLOR. We have a fisheries attaché whose responsibility is exclusively fisheries.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Just one man?

man.

Mr. TAYLOR. One man, with a local assistant, a Japanese assistant, and, of course, secretarial service. This fisheries attaché is a ranking He is not a junior officer. His field is exclusively fisheries. Mr. BECKWORTH. The point I am trying to clarify at the present time is: Do we get rather ample information from our Embassy out there concerning Japanese activities in fishing that might favorably or unfavorably affect us?

Mr. TAYLOR. Today, on tuna catches, no.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Would this legislation in your judgment help us to get that information?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir. I made a trip to Japan this past spring for the express purpose of getting a Japanese commitment to cooperate in the manner in which we felt it necessary to make the program work.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Why would we have to enact this kind of legislation in order to get them to cooperate?

Mr. TAYLOR. This is not aimed at getting the Japanese to cooperate except insofar as it contains inducements, like the embargo that could be levied or brought to bear in the event they should not cooperate. The basic purpose of this legislation is to vest authority for the regulation of our own nationals and to provide safeguards so as not to put them in an inequitable position.

Mr. BECKWORTH. What groups are resisting this type legislation? Mr. TAYLOR. In the United States?

Mr. BECKWORTH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR. Until late yesterday, I was under the distinct impression, as I have had occasion to express to the committee's staff, sir, that we had the full concurrence of all of the affected elements of the American tuna industry. Late yesterday I understand that the American Tunaboat Association, located in San Diego, Calif., had belatedly or at the last minute had some reservations as to some aspects of this bill in connection with its effect upon other countries and their cooperation in the program. I have had no opportunity to speak with the representative of that association, with which we worked out, I thought, quite agreeably, the text of S. 2568, as amended.

Lacking such opportunity, I am not able to speak intelligently on this. He is the only one I know of at the present time who has any reservations about it.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Has he notified you that he would like to be heard, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. SELDEN. We have received a communication from the American Tunaboat Association and we have notified them that there will be an open hearing, at which time they can testify.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Is there anywhere listed in the testimony the groups that are advocating this legislation? I assume there are several groups. Would you enumerate four or five of them?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. The American Tunaboat Association, the Fishermen's Cooperative Association-that has reference to the small purse seiners in the San Pedro area; California Fish Canners Association; International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Fishermen's Local 33; Cannery Workers & Fisheries Union; and, last, Seine & Line Fishermen's Union.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Those would be about the only organizational groups that would have an interest.

Mr. SELDEN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BECKWORTH. I yield..

Mr. SELDEN. I had planned to put this information in the record, later, but I will do so at this point. The committee has received correspondence from the following groups concurring with this bill and the proposed amendments by the executive branch of the Govern

ment: The Seine & Line Fishermen's Union of San Pedro (California), John Calise, business agent; California Fish Canners Association, Inc., Terminal Island, Calif., Charles R. Carry, executive director; Fishermen's Cooperative Association of San Pedro (California), Anthony Nizetich, general manager.

Without objection, I will include this correspondence at this point. (The correspondence follows:)

SEINE & LINE FISHERMEN'S UNION OF SAN PEDRO,
San Pedro, Calif., July 30, 1962.

Hon. ARMISTEAD I. SELDEN, Jr.,
Chairman, Inter-American Affairs Subcommittee, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SELDEN: The Senate on July 18 passed S. 2568, a bill to amend the act of September 7, 1950, to extend the regulatory authority of the Federal and State agencies concerned, under the terms of the Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, signed at Washington, May 31, 1949, and for other purposes, and referred the bill to the House for action.

The bill as passed represents the combined views of all of the major organizations in the California tuna industry. It, also, except for some amendments proposed by the Department of State which did not reach the Senate Commerce Committee in time to be considered by the committee, represented the views of the several Government agencies concerned.

The proposed amendments to which I refer include the definition contained in section 1, beginning on line 24, page 9, and extending through line 5 on page 10 of the version reported by the committee. For a number of reasons the Department of State suggested a modification of the definition of the United States as it is contained therein. There has been further consultation between the Department of State and the appropriate members of the industry with regard to the Department's proposal concerning a modification of this definition. The members of the industry who participated in the several conferences and discussions with the Senate committee staff, with the interested agencies of the Government-the Department of State and the Department of Interior-believe that the new definition proposed by the Department of State will meet the requirements of the industry to close all possible loopholes that might permit evasion of the intent of the legislation. That definition is as follows:

"(e) 'United States' shall include all areas under the sovereignty of the United States, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Canal Zone."

I understand this definition in its reference to "areas under the sovereignty of the United States" includes the 50 States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and numerous other insular possessions is in accordance with the definition contained in State Department Geographic Report No. 4, dated June 23, 1961, prepared by the geographer of the Department of State.

I understand further that this definition for the purpose of this act only, also includes the Panama Canal Zone and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The State Department has also suggested two additional modifications of language in the interest of clarity.

These amendments are also agreeable.

These modifications are contained in section 2(c), page 13, line 9, where the word "any," should be changed to "such," and section 2(c), page 13, lines 12 to 18, which should be revised to read as follows: "The aforesaid provisions shall continue until the Secretary of the Interior is satisfied that the condition warranting the prohibition no longer exists, except that fish in any form of the species under regulation which were previously prohibited from entry shall continue to be prohibited from entry."

***

I understand the foregoing modification to mean that when the Secretary of Interior is satisfied that the condition warranting the prohibition, e.g., repeated and flagrant fishing operations in the regulatory area by the vessels of any country which seriously threatens the objective of the Commission's recommendation * * *" no longer exists, fish under regulation (for example, yellowfin), which were previously denied entry will continue to be denied entry, but fish under investigation (for example, skipjack), which were temporarily denied entry will now be permitted to be entered.

It is our understanding that these modifications will achieve the objectives desired by the industry, namely, that in the event U.S. fishermen are regulated, fishermen of other countries will not be able to violate the intent of the convention, thereby discriminating against U.S. fishermen. On this basis I urge the committee to report the bill favorably as expeditiously as possible. Since the bill as amended is agreeable to the concerned agencies of the Government and the affected tuna industry has no objection to passage, it would appear that public hearings on the measure could be held quickly or dispensed with entirely in the interest of obtaining passage of the measure at the earliest opportunity. Yours sincerely,

JOHN CALISE, Secretary-Business Agent.

CALIFORNIA FISH CANNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Terminal Island, Calif., August 3, 1962.

Hon. ARMISTEAD I. SELDEN, Jr.,

Chairman, Inter-American Affairs Subcommittee, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SELDEN: By letter dated July 27, I have already notified you of the agreement of the members of this association to the amendments to S. 2568 proposed by the Department of State.

However, so that the record concerning this legislation may be complete, I believe it is desirable to point out to you that the members of the California Fish Canners Association operate plants in southern California and in Puerto Rico, in which are processed all of the yellowfin and skipjack tuna caught by the various elements of the American tuna fleet operating out of San Diego and San Pedro. Additionally, practically all of the tuna of these species (except small quantities consumed locally) caught in the eastern Pacific by fleets operating from Latin American countries finds its way ultimately in frozen form to canneries in the United States. Indeed our plants account for 85 percent of all tuna produced in the United States. The value of our annual production is in excess of $200 million. Our capital investment in plant and facilities is huge and most of our members also have substantial investments in fishing vessels. We employ between 4,000 and 6,000 cannery workers in our plants. It will be seen, therefore, that our interest in any legislation which affects any phase of our industry is considerable.

Some of us who have had longtime experience with the work of the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission are of the opinion that it might be helpful to your committee, in considering this legislation, to have before you a review of the reasons leading to the establishment of the IATTC, and the relationship between the work of this Commission and other international fishery problems which have arisen in recent years. Accordingly, there is enclosed a statement of the reasons leading to the establishment of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and related matters, which we would appreciate your making a part of the record concerning this legislation.

Yours sincerely,

CHAS. R. CARRY, Executive Director.

REVIEW OF THE REASONS LEADING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INTERAMERICAN TROPICAL TUNA COMMISSION AND RELATED MATTERS

It has been suggested that a review of the reasons leading to the establishment of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission might be useful in considering the need for the enactment of legislation to extend the regulatory authority of the Federal and State agencies concerned under the terms of the Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, signed at Washington, May 23, 1949, and for other purposes.

The genesis of the problem which this Commission was created to work on arose from two factors quite unrelated to the tuna fishery of the United States: offshore oil, and the salmon fishery of Bristol Bay, Alaska.

Just prior to World War II the technology of oil prospecting and drilling had developed to the point where oil could be found, drilled for, and harvested well offshore on continental shelves. While there were international connotations to this development, they never bulked as large in the resulting tussle as did the contest internally for the revenues that would result from the harvesting of these resources between the Federal Government and the coastal States off which the known or suspected fields of oil were located.