Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction, pursuant to the provisions of subsection (f) of this section or, if perishable, in a manner prescribed by regulations of the Secretary of the Interior.

"(f) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 2464 of title 28 of the United States Code, when a warrant of arrest or other process in rem is issued in any cause under this section, the marshal or other officer shall stay the execution of such process, or discharge any fish seized if the process has been levied, on receiving from the claimant of the fish a bond or stipulation for the value of the property with sufficient surety to be approved by a judge of the district court having jurisdiction of the offense, conditioned to deliver the fish seized, if condemned, without impairment in value or, in the discretion of the court, to pay its equivalent value in money or otherwise to answer the decree of the court in such cause. Such bond or stipulation shall be returned to the court and judgment thereon against both the principal and sureties may be recovered in event of any breach of the conditions thereof as determined by the court. the discretion of the accused, and subject to the direction of the court, the fish may be sold for not less than its reasonable market value and the proceeds of such sale placed in the registry of the court pending judgment in the case." SEC. 6. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to amend or repeal the provisions of section 4311 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (46 U.S.C. 251). Passed the Senate July 18, 1962.

Attest:

FELTON M. JOHNSTON,

Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, July 25, 1962.

In

Hon. THOMAS E. MORGAN,

Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: S. 2568, as amended, was passed by the Senate on July 18, 1962, and referred to your committee. This bill, which would amend the act of September 7, 1950, so as to enable this Government further to carry out its obligations under the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Convention, is sponsored by this Department. With certain exceptions the Senate-approved text of S. 2568 represents a compromise version worked out in consultations between representatives of the Departments of State and Interior with interested segments of the U.S. tuna industry. These consultations followed hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee on the text of legislation originally proposed by the Department in letters dated September 14, 1961, to the Speaker of the House and to the Vice President of the Senate. A House bill has not been introduced.

The exceptions referred to above do not represent remaining differences between the administration and the tuna industry. Rather they are the result of consultations subsequent to the approval by the Senate of S. 2568. In point of fact, there is agreement with the tuna industry on these items and, it is understood, the industry's representatives are notifying your committee directly of this. With these changes, which are described below, S. 2568 may be considered noncontroversial.

In its present form S. 2568 would define the United States as follows:

"(e) 'United States' includes its territories, possessions, and other areas under its control or jurisdiction" (lines 4 and 5, p. 10).

The Department feels that this is much too broad a definition. The term "other areas under its control or jurisdiction," which had originally been proposed by the industry for the definition, would raise serious questions as to whether the legislation would have application to areas with respect to which the United States exercises some form of administrative, leasehold, or other control but with respect to which its legislation is not ordinarily extended. After further consideration it is now believed that the conservation program underlying S. 2568 would be effectively served by defining the United States 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."

In addition to the foregoing substantive change, two changes of a purely editorial nature merely for purposes of clarification are desirable. Both occur on page 13 of S. 2568: (1) The word "such" ought to be substituted for the word "any" in line 9; and (2) the sentence in lines 12 to 18 should, preferably, read as follows:

"The aforesaid prohibitions shall continue until the Secretary of the Interior is satisfied that the condition warranting the prohibition no longer exists, except that all fish in any form of the species under regulation which were previously prohibited from entry shall continue to be prohibited from entry."

As noted, neither of these two changes is intended to affect the substance. Regarding the latter one, the Department would point out that with respect to eligibility for the U.S. market of tuna on hand once an embargo has been lifted, a clear distinction is to be drawn between embargoed tuna of a regulated species (e.g., yellowfin), on the one hand, and embargoed tuna of a species that is not under regulation but which is only under investigation by the Commission (e.g., skipjack and bigeye), on the other. In the latter case the tuna caught during the period it was subject to the embargo would not be barred from the U.S. market upon the revocation of the embargo. In the other case, supplies of regulated species which had been embargoed would continue to be prohibited from entry after the lifting of the embargo. The last-mentioned treatment is necessary to avoid a means of easy circumvention of the embargo, as where a country might ignore the conservation regulations, then set its house in order and proceed to market in the United States the tuna it had caught in contravention of the regulations.

It is very important that S. 2568, with the changes indicated above, be enacted into law during the present session of Congress if at all possible. The reason for this is twofold: (1) The United States is committed by the terms of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Convention "to enact such legislation as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of *** [the] Convention," and its principal purpose is conservation of the tuna resources in concern, and (2) delay will only work to the disadvantage of the conservation program for yellowfin tuna, this species having been found to be in need of catch restrictions. Your committee's urgent attention to this matter is, therefore, respectfully requested.

The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

FREDERICK G. DUTTON,
Assistant Secretary.

Mr. SELDEN. We have with us this morning several witnesses from the executive branch of the Government. They include Mr. Fred E. Taylor, Deputy Special Assistant for Fisheries and Wildlife to the Undersecretary of State; Mr. Ralph E. Curtiss, Legislative Adviser to the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Department of the Interior; and Dr. J. Laurence McHugh, U.S. Commissioner of Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

Our first witness is Mr. Fred E. Taylor. Mr. Taylor, will you proceed.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF FRED E. TAYLOR, DEPUTY ASSISTANT FOR FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE TO THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. TAYLOR. My name is Fred E. Taylor. I am Deputy Special Assistant for Fisheries and Wildlife to the Under Secretary of State. It is my privilege to appear before you to testify on behalf of S. 2568, as amended, legislation sponsored by the Department of State. S. 2568, as amended, was formulated in consultation with the U.S. tuna industry, and with certain exceptions, noted hereinafter, represents a text that the industry in general can support.

At this point I must depart from my prepared statement to inform the committee that only at the last minute did I learn of a mental

reservation on the part of one element of the tuna industry concerning the implications of this law in the international aspect. That element is the American Tunaboat Association. I have had no opportunity to discuss this matter with its representative. I hope to presently. Until this development we had the full and complete agreement of that association as well as of all the other organizations of the tuna producing and processing industries to S. 2568, as amended, including the further changes I am going to mention hereinafter.

Mr. SELDEN. I might say to you, Mr. Taylor, there will be an opportunity for other witnesses to be heard in connection with this legislation if they so desire.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

Essentially, S. 2568, as amended, would revise the existing basic tuna legislation (16 U.S.C. 951) so as to adapt that legislation to present-day needs. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission has recommended certain conservation measures for yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, the United States accepted the recommendation, and it has therefore become necessary for the United States to effectuate it. S. 2568, as amended, does just that, vesting certain authority essential to the regulation of nationals and vessels of the United States for purposes of conservation. But before going further into the content of the proposed legislation under consideration here today, I should like to comment briefly upon the origin of the tuna conservation regime for the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.

In 1949 this Government negotiated with Costa Rica a Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. The convention entered into force on March 3, 1950. The original two parties have since been joined by Panama and Ecuador through adherence by the latter to the convention. The Government of Colombia has signified interest in adhering to the convention. This convention is concerned with the establishment and operation of an international commission. The Commission has responsibility and authority for gathering and interpreting factual information to facilitate maintaining the populations of yellowfin and skipjack tuna, as well as other kinds of fish taken by tuna fishing vessels in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, at a level which would permit maximum sustainable catches year after year. In actuality, the convention is a forward-looking device; that is, it looks to the prevention of the depletion of high seas resources, rather than, as has traditionally been the case, to means for their restoration after depletion has already occurred. In the ensuing dozen years the Commission established by the convention has carried out an enlightened and technically advanced program of research which has made it possible for the Commission to determine, with some assurance, the maximum sustainable yield that can be obtained from the yellowfin tuna stock in the convention area and the general size of the yellowfin stock required to support this yield. As a result of recent technological developments, principally use of the power block for hauling nets and use of synthetic fiber in net construction, the catch of yellowfin by our fleet increased rapidly during the last few years and, in 1961, for the first time reached and somewhat exceeded the catch that can

be sustained by the yellowfin stock on a continuing basis. At a special meeting in September 1961 the Commission reviewed the situation and concluded that the intensive fishing would continue and that the annual catch for several years, beginning in 1962, should therefore be limited to 83,000 tons in order to restore the stock to the level that would provide the maximum sustainable yield. Failure to do this would result in further overfishing and further reduction in the sustainable yield. This recommendation was accepted by the U.S. Gov

ernment.

The present implementing legislation for the tuna convention was enacted in 1950 when the need for conservation regulations was remote, and when knowledge of the kind of regulations that might ultimately be needed was not at hand. For this reason the 1950 implementing legislation did not include authority to regulate. S. 2568, as amended, will rectify this situation.

At the beginning of my statement I referred to certain exceptions that are taken to the text of S. 2568. One is substantive, the others purely editorial for purposes of clarification. These items do not represent differences between the administration and our tuna industry. Actually, they were the subjects of consultation with the industry and agreement following Senate approval of S. 2568, as amended. The one has reference to the definition of the United States. The others to preferred language for the latter portion of section 2. All this is fully explained in the Department's letter of July 25, 1962,1 to the committee and I will not take up the committee's time by repeating here what was said in that letter.

I will now review briefly the principal provisions of S. 2568, as amended, and their purposes in relation to the tuna conservation regime:

Section 2. The Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 (16 U.S.C. 951), the existing basic tuna legislation, would be amended to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations to carry out recommendations of the Commission, upon the approval of such recommendations by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Interior, and sets out the procedure to be followed in doing this. The law would look to the application of such regulations to U.S. nationals by an agreed date for the application by other concerned countries of effective regulations against their nationals, exception being made for instances where the catch by another country would be insignificant. The Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to suspend the application of the regulations he has promulgated when, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the U.S. Commissioners, he determines that unregulated foreign fishing in the regulatory area constitutes a serious threat to the achievement of the objectives of the Commission's conservation recommendations. Section 2 also gives examples of types of conservation regulations that the Secretary of the Interior may promulgate.

In addition, section 2 contains a singularly important proviso_to the effect that, under certain circumstances, the Secretary of the In

1 See p. 4.

terior, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, shall promulgate regulations embargoing from any country tuna, in any form, of those species subject to regulation pursuant to a recommendation of the Commission. The circumstances that call for this action are: (1) when the fishing vessels of such country are being operated in a manner that would defeat or diminish the effectiveness of the conservation recommendations of the Commission, or (2) when the tuna was taken from the regulatory area by persons not nationals of such country in a manner or under conditions which would defeat or diminish the effectiveness of the conservation recommendations of the Commission. In certain circumstances, the embargo may extend to other species of tuna that are only under investigation by the Commission; that is to say, which are not under regulation. The legislation provides that the mandatory limitation on imports shall be placed into effect at the time that regulations applicable to U.S. fishermen are promulgated. These provisions are intended to remove any possibility that the lucrative U.S. market for raw or processed tuna will provide incentives for the fishermen of other countries to operate in a manner that will defeat the purpose of the Commission's conservation program, or to withhold or unnecessarily delay the furnishing to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission of the current catch records necessary for the effective operation of the conservation program. These provisions also guard against the possibility of an obvious inequity, since manifestly it would be unfair to impose strict limitations on U.S. fishermen for the purpose of conservation when the fishermen of other countries were operating in a manner which made such a conservation program ineffective and were exporting the tuna caught to U.S. markets in competition with the production of our fishermen.

Section 3 contains authority necessary to the examination of essential catch returns, statistical records, and the like that are required by the regulations adopted under this legislation.

Section 4 accomplishes a number of things:

(a) It makes it an offense for any person to engage in fishing in violation of any regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under the act or to deal in fish taken in violation of such regulations;

(b) It makes it unlawful for the master or owner or any person in charge of a fishing vessel of the United States to fail to cooperate in certain respects concerned with the keeping and inspection of records required by regulations adopted under this legislation;

(c) It, in effect, makes it unlawful for any person to violate an embargo promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior under the act; (d) It spells out the penalties applicable to the various offenses; and

(e) It describes certain judicial procedures with respect to enforcement activities.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »