There had been continuing clashes with Ecuador and Peru involving vessel seizures and even firing on U.S. vessels with wounding of American seamen. Chile was also exercised but had seized no vessels. Tempers were short in the Americas on this issue and feelings were tense as the nations gathered in Rome in the spring of 1955 to discuss the conservation of the living resources of the sea. While the terms of reference of this conference were restricted to the topic of the conservation of the living resources of the sea, what the Latin AmeriIcan and some other countries wanted to discuss was the control of fisheries in the adjacent high seas by the coastal states. The feelings of the nations at the conference were about equally divided on this issue of what were the proper terms of reference of the conference. This was indicated by the broad continental sea countries winning a critical vote one day by a margin of one vote only to have the conference decide the next day, again by a margin of one vote, that discussion of the breadth of the territorial sea, control of fisheries on the high seas, and related subjects was outside the terms of reference of the conference. The excitability of the conference is indicated by the fact that at this juncture the vice chairman, a Latin, resigned with a fiery speech, and left not only the conference, but the city and the country. Nevertheless, the central objective of this conference could not be anything else than the consideration of ways and means, internationally, of preventing overfishing of fish stocks in the high seas of the world and in the end the conference adopted a report recommending international management of the high seas fisheries by the nations directly interested in the particular fishery, acting jointly under treaty, and on the basis of scientific information obtained jointly. The conference specifically referred to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission as a good instance in point where an international conservation policy had been adopted and adequate international scientific inquiry initated early in the history of a fishery before a conservation problem developed. The CEP countries (Chile, Ecuador, and Peru) were the hard shell proponents of the 200-mile doctrine in the international arena. They based their contention on this logic: (a) Fishing technology was advancing so rapidly that large, efficient fishing vessels could go long distances from home port and operate in fisheries with economic satisfaction; (b) they were effective enough that they could decimate resources in an area and then move on to others elsewhere; (c) the economic and social effects of this marauding type of activity would be most damaging to the economy, nutrition, and general welfare of these smaller, economically weaker countries who could not support large efficient fleets of this nature; (d) the big countries could not effectively control their fishermen when they were long distances from home; (e) consequently, the small countries would see one after another of the resources off their coast destroyed or decimated; (f) the only way to prevent this happening was to give the coastal country jurisdiction over the fisheries in the adjacent high seas; and (g) proof that this was so lay in the far-ranging tuna vessels which were spreading all through the Eastern Pacific bringing devastation not only to the tuna stocks but to the anchovy stocks as well which the tuna fishers were using as bait. Because one of the causative factors for the calling of this conference was the 200-mile controversy in the Eastern Pacific which, by now, largely hinged on the conservation of the tuna stocks in that large area of ocean, the role of the Tuna Commission in the conference was considerable. Its Director of Investigations had been retained by the United Nations as an independent expert to serve on the U.N. staff for the conference. When at one stage of the conference he was called upon, and was able to say, that his staff's investigations were now sufficiently forwarded to show that there was no overfishing of any of the stocks of tuna or bait fishes in the Eastern Pacific at that time, had not been in the past, and would not be in the future until there was a sharp change in the economic fortunes of the industry, the effect of the statement upon the arguments of the proponents of the 200-mile doctrine was devastating. Indeed when the conference had laid before it (a) that three countries of the Eastern Pacific were joined together in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission to prevent overfishing of tuna and bait fishes; (b) an international conservation policy had already been formulated for this fishery which was apparently working effectively; and (c) there was not, and had not been, any overfishing on any of these stocks in the Eastern Pacific, the 200-mile doctrine collapsed like a punctured balloon. As a matter of fact, it has never recovered any vitality since. From the standpoint of the U.S. Government and the California tuna industry, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission had by 88007-62-3 now fully justified its existence, and the effect of its work on this field of international law and practice was only beginning. Prior to this Rome conference, the U.S. Government had succeeded in obtaining the commitment of the CEP powers to cease molesting U.S. fishing vessels on the high seas while this subject of fisheries conservation and jurisdiction was under review by the United Nations. In return for this commitment, it had offered to negotiate with these three countries a peaceful solution of these problems directly after the Rome conference and in the light of whatever report the Rome conference brought forward. This U.S.-CEP conference was convened in Santiago, Chile, in SeptemberOctober 1955. On the basis of what the Rome conference has brought out and the facts publicly available from the work of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, the conservation argument was not intensively pursued by the CEP countries during the conference. The conference eventually broke down and adjourned without an agreement having been reached. This breakdown did not arise out of the tuna conservation problem, however, but out of basic legal differences over the Chile-Ecuador-Peru claim to a 200-mile territorial sea. The conference indirectly achieved its objective of quieting this acrid controversy over the tuna-fishing problem among these four otherwise friendly allies. Peru shortly issued a decree giving foreign tuna vessels privileges to use its ports and territorial sea for bait fishery, supplies, etc., under licenses obtainable for a reasonable fee and much along the lines which had been long exercised by other countries to the north. Chile followed suit with a similar decree a little later. Ecuador adhered to the convention establishing the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission in 1961. In the immediate wake of the Rome conference other important events took place. The International Law Commission meeting in Gevena directly after the Rome Conference brought forward a series of articles incorporating the principles of the Rome conference which were incorporated in a draft treaty on the law of the sea which was being prepared for the United Nations. This draft treaty after passing through the normal channels of review among the Nations, led to the calling by the United Nations of an International Conference on the Law of the Sea at Geneva, Switzerland, in the spring of 1958. The First Geneva Law of the Sea Conference was a remarkably successful meeting considering the acrimony which had developed concerning the issue over the years. The issue of the breadth of the territorial sea had been taken out of the hands of fishery experts and elevated to the hands of the top diplomats and strategists. While they debated this issue, and did not resolve it, the specialized committees of the conferences went quietly to work and were highly successful. Out of this conference came four conventions, one dealing with the law of the high seas, another with the law of the territorial sea, a third with the law of the Continental Shelf, and the fourth with the conservation of the living resources of the sea. The last of these provides an agreed method for handling any problem that is likely to arise in the conservation of the high seas fisheries and it can be said to be international law on the subject now although not quite enough countries have ratified it for the convention to have come into force. The United States has ratified it, and considers that we are bound by it. Two paragraphs of this convention have particular application to the passage of the legislation under consideration. These are: (1) Article 1, paragraph 2, which reads: "All states have the duty to adopt, or to cooperate with other states in adopting, such measures for their respective nationals as may be necessary for the conservation of the living resources of the high seas;" and (b) Article 7, paragraph 1: “Having regard to the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 6, any coastal state may, with a view to the maintenance of the productivity of the living resources of the sea, adopt, unilaterally, measures of conservation appropriate to any stock of fish or other marine resources in any area of the high seas adjacent to its territorial sea, provided that negotiations to that effect with the other states concerned have not led to an agreement within 6 months." The application of these two paragraphs to the present legislation is clear: (1) The United States has committed itself internationally to prevent its citizens from overfishing high-seas resources, (b) it has agreed that if it does not do so the country off whose coast the fishery lies may do so unilaterally. If, in fact, U.S. fishermen are overfishing the tuna stocks the United States had the obligation to act to prevent overfishing. If the United States does not, the coastal states along the shores of the eastern Pacific have every right to take any steps they consider appropriate. The sole question remaining, therefore, is: Are the stocks of yellowfin and skipjack tuna being overfished? As we shall see, the answer with respect to yellowfin is "Yes." The economic pressures on the California tuna fishing industry began to relax in 1959 with the institution of several technological changes simultaneously that introduced the purse seine revolution. As a consequence, the amount of fishing effort it could apply has increased sharply each year since. The InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission's scientific staff had estimated, in 1954, that the point of maximum sustainable production from the yellowfin tuna stocks of the eastern Pacific was about 100,000 tons per year. New data since that time has merely supported this early estimate. The production was about 100,000 tons in 1960, and reached 117,000 tons in 1961. Accordingly the Commission has now recommended that the fishing effort in the eastern Pacific be so regulated that enough tuna be put back into the stock to replace the quantity over 100,000 tons that was removed in 1961. Most of the fishing for yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific is done by U.S. nationals. It is necessary now for this fishing effort to be reduced somewhat by the United States. Without the passage of appropriate legislation, the United States does not have the legal power to do this. The result is very simple. Either the U.S. Congress grants this additional authority to the Executive or the U.S. Government will be required to renege on international commitments it has undertaken. If it reneges on its obligations, the practical results will not be less on the American fishermen. All of the actions of the Tuna Commission are public knowledge, and well known to interested Latin American countries. They wish to protect the resources off their coasts. As noted above, the United States has given them its consent to do this unilaterally, in respect of its vessels, if it is not doing it. To conclude, let us go back to the first half of the last decade. The 200-mile doctrine for fishery jurisdiction was not killed through this long series of international activities. It was only made inoperative because another system— international instead of unilateral action-was proposed as a substitute, and this substitute was more agreeable to the family of nations. But the family of nations recognized that that system might not work in all instances, and that the overfishing problem might arise quickly and require a prompt solution. This was the reason for article 7 of the 1958 convention cited above. Under this set of conditions, the Latin Americans who favored the 200-mile doctrine had no alternative but to sit back and see if the system of international control would work. They were perfectly confident that this system would not work, and they stated so bluntly at the time. As soon as a problem came up which called for a solution, they said, the world would learn that such a system of international controls would not work. Then the coastal state would have to move unilaterally to protect its interests. A perfect example has now arisen and it will be seen whether the framers of this system of international control were correct, or whether the framers of the unilateral system of control were the ones who understood human nature the best. Certain events have taken place recently that are disquieting: El Salvador illegally seized a tuna vessel; Ecuador has promulgated a decree banning purse seining in a 40-mile band along a broad expanse of its coastline. Other countries are understood to be considering similar action. None of these has used conservation as a pretext. However, if we renege, if we fail to impose conservation regulations, we may expect more and more drastic acts by other nations, but on the morally justifiable basis of conservation necessity. The effects of such moves on the tuna industry are perfectly obvious. The United States must fulfill its responsibilities under the Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and establish regulations in respect of its nationals to carry out the recommendations of the Commission, to prove the framers of the system of international control have been correct. It cannot do this unless the U.S. Congress adopts S. 2568, or a bill having similar effects. FISHERMEN'S COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF SAN PEDRO, Hon. ARMISTEAD I. SELDEN, Jr., 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 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 the 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." 66* * * I understand the foregoing modification to mean that when the Secretary of the 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. Very truly yours, ANTHONY NIZETICH, General Manager. Mr. SELDEN. In addition to these communications, we have also received correspondence from the following, concurring in general with this legislation and the proposed amendments, who have requested time to testify before the subcommittee: Cannery Workers & Fishermen's Union, San Diego, Calif.; American Tunaboat Association, San Diego, Calif., August Felando, general manager; and the International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Jeff Kibre, Washington representative. Their correspondence, without objection, will be included at this point in the record. (The correspondence follows:) Hon. THOMAS E. MORGAN, CANNERY WORKERS & FISHERMEN'S UNION, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, DEAR MR. MORGAN: 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 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." 66* ** re I understand the foregoing modification to mean that when the Secretary of Interior is satisfied that the condition warranting the prohibition, e.g. peated and flagrant fishing operations in the regulatory area by the vessels of any country which seriously threatens the objective of the Commission's recom |