the tuna and tunalike fishes of the Pacific Ocean. It has no powers to regulate the tuna fisheries. The convention is a purely bilateral one. In early May 1949 the Costa Rican Government signified its willingness to consider a tuna-fisheries agreement, along the lines of the United States-Mexico convention. This Government consented, the more readily since the United States high seas tuna fleet extensively resorts to Costa Rican territorial waters for port and bait privileges, and the two countries have many mutual fisheries interests and long and amicable relations with respect to such interests. The conversations were duly opened in Washington on May 23, 1949, under the chairmanship of Dr. W. M. Chapman, special assistant for Fisheries and Wildlife to the Under Secretary of State. The sessions continued through May 24 and May 25, by which time full agreement on the issues involved in the establishment of a joint scientific investigating commission had been reached. The United States delegates were Dr. W. M. Chapman, special assistant to the Under Secretary, chairman, and Milton C. James, Assistant Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, member. They were assisted by the following who served as advisers: Donald J. Chaney, Chief Counsel of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior; Richard S. Croker, chief of the California Bureau of Fisheries; Frederick J. Cunningham, second secretary of the United States Embassy at San Jose; Fred G. Heins, political economist, Department of State; Arnie J. Suomela, master fish warden, Oregon Fish Commission; and Fred E. Taylor, treaty adviser, Department of State. Mr. Chaney acted as secretary of the United States delegation. The Costa Rican delegation was composed of Mario A. Esquivel, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the United States; Jorge Hazera, counselor of the Costa Rican Embassy in Washington; José Luis Cardona-Cooper; and Eduardo Martin. Dr. Mogens Jul of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations attended the conference as an observer. It appeared at the first meeting that no substantial disagreement existed between the two delegations with respect to the desirability of a joint scientific commission for tuna and tuna-bait investigation. After a brief exposition by the chairman of the practice and procedures of international fisheries commissions, the Conference entered immediately into a detailed consideration, in plenary session, of the provisions of a draft convention submitted by the United States delegation. While modeled upon the United States-Mexico Tuna Convention referred to above, the draft Convention differed in certain aspects in order to apply more precisely to the fisheries relations existing between the United States and Costa Rica. In this regard, the draft Convention limited the subjects of investigation to the yellowfin and skipjack tunas and related bait fishes; it applied particularly to the tropical waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean; and, a matter of great importance, it made provision for the adherence of any other state whose nationals operated in the fisheries concerned. All these changes from the United States-Mexican Convention were agreeable to the Costa Rican delegation. In turn, in discussion of the articles of the draft Convention, that delegation requested that provision be made, and it was agreed, that the species subject to investigation by the commission be expanded to include, besides the yellowfin and skipjack tunas, "other kinds of fish taken by tuna fishing vessels"; that the anchovetta be particularly designated as a bait fish to be studied; that the share of the joint expenses to be paid by each high contracting party be related to the proportion of total catch utilized by that party; and that the Convention should not be deemed to preclude a high contracting party from entering into treaties or conventions with other states with respect to the fisheries concerned, provided they were not incompatible with the present convention. To the chairman's request whether it was the desire of the Costa Rican delegation to discuss other fisheries matters in addition to the establishment of the Joint Tuna Commission, the Costa Rican delegation replied in the negative. The Convention was signed in Washington on May 31, 1949, by the Acting Secretary of State, Mr. Webb, and Dr. Chapman and, on behalf of Costa Rica, by Ambassador Esquivel and Mr. Hazera. A summary of the Convention follows: The first article relates to the establishment and functioning of a joint commission, to be known as the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Paragraph 1 provides that the Commission shall be composed of national sections, each consisting of from one to four members, appointed by the respective Governments. Paragraph 2 provides for the annual submittal to each Government by the Commission of a report on its investigations and findings, with recommendation, and on other appropriate matters. Paragraph 3 provides for the payment of joint and several expenses of the Commission. Paragraph 4 provides that the general annual program of activities and the budget of joint expenses shall be recommended by the Commission and submitted for approval to the signatory Governments. Paragraph 5 provides that the Commission shall determine the place or places for its headquarters. Paragraph 6 provides for meetings by the Commission at least once each year. Paragraph 7 provides for the selection for and rotation in the offices of chairman and secretary of the Commission. Paragraph 8 requires unanimous vote for decisions, resolutions, recommendations, and publications of the Commission, each national section having one vote. Paragraph 9 authorizes the Commission to adopt bylaws and rules for the conduct of its meetings. Paragraph 10 authorizes the Commission to employ necessary personnel. Paragraph 11 provides for the establishment of an advisory committee by each high contracting party for its national section. Paragraph 12 authorizes the Commission to hold public heatings, and each national section to hold public hearings within its own country. Paragraph 13 provides for a director of investigations and specifies his duties. Paragraph 14 establishes English and Spanish as the official languages of the Commission, and requires certain records and publications to be in both languages. Paragraph 15 provides that each national section may obtain certified copies of any documents pertaining to the Commission except that the Commission may adopt rules to insure the confidential character of individual company statistics and records. Paragraph 16 permits the Commission to utilize the technical and scientific services of other public and private agencies. Article II describes the functions and duties of the Commission. These are directed toward the goal of obtaining scientific information concerning the yellowfin (Neothunnus) and skipjack (Katsuwonus) tuna fishes, and the kinds of fishes commonly used as bait in the tuna fisheries, especially the anchovetta. Other kinds of fish taken by tuna fishing vessels may also be studied. The Commission is authorized to conduct scientific studies, collect and analyze statistics, and engage in similar fact-finding activities. It is also authorized to recommend proposals for joint conservation action by the high contracting parties, and to publish or otherwise disseminate reports of its findings and other appropriate reports. It is not, however, authorized to promulgate regulations for the purposes of conservation. By article III the high contracting parties agree to enact the legislation necessary to carry out the purposes of the convention. Article IV provides that the convention shall not be construed to modify any existing treaty with regard to the fisheries concerned previously concluded by a high contracting party, or to preclude a high contracting party from entering into treaties or conventions with other states regarding these fisheries, provided the terms are not incompatible with the present Convention. Article V contains the ratification provisions. The Convention is to enter into force upon the exchange of ratifications. Any government whose nationals participate in the fisheries concerned in the Convention may adhere to the Convention upon receiving the unanimous consent of the high contracting parties. Withdrawals of member Governments are possible, after 10 years from the date of entry into force of the Convention. The delegation of the United States believes that the interests of this country will be served by ratification of this Convention which it is anticipated will not only result in a positive benefit to the respective fishing industries of both countries but will also contribute to the conservation of an important food resource. Respectfully yours, W. M. CHAPMAN, Chairman, United States Delegation. (At this point, there was discussion off the record.) Senator GREEN. We shall next hear Senator Knowland, of California, out of which State most of the United States tuna fishing is operated. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Senator KNOWLAND. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to appear before your committee in behalf of Executive K and Executive P, which are conventions between the United States and the countries of Mexico and Costa Rica, respectively, for the establishment of commissions for the scientific investigation of tuna and tuna-like fish. The purpose of the investigation is to scientifically obtain the necessary facts in order to conserve this natural resource with a view to sustaining the yield of the valuable tuna fisheries of the Pacific. I wish also to take this opportunity of commending the Department of State in this matter of consultation with the industry, both with labor and management and with the State of California and the other agencies interested in this important problem. The cooperation has been fine, and I bave heard nothing but commendation for the splendid efforts of the Department in this regard. Landings of tuna in California have jumped from 29,000,000 pounds in 1926 to 312,000,000 pounds in 1948. Whereas 64 percent of the fish landed in 1926 were taken from waters adjacent to the United States, today nearly 90 percent is taken below the Mexican boundary line. The waters stretching westward from Mexico have been most productive and in more recent years, the waters west of Costa Rica have been most actively fished. Unfortunately, unlike the splendid work done by the international commissions in safeguarding the salmon and halibut resources to the north, very little scientific work has been done on tuna, and we have no knowledge whether the heavy investment in this rapidly growing industry and its growing labor force will be suddenly faced with barren seas, such as happened in the halibut situation to which Mr. Chapman has referred. THE SIZE OF THE TUNA INDUSTRY The tuna industry supplies employment for over 5,000 fishermen and 7,000 fish-processing workers in California alone. Investment in boats, equipment, canneries, and so forth, exceed $70,000,000. The value of the catch at the fishermen's level in 1948 exceeded $50,000,000 in California. These two conventions represent another stone in the good-neighbor bridge. They represent an amicable agreement between nations to save and share the natural resources of the seas for the common good. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would like to file for the record a few of the letters and telegrams I have received from industry, labor, and the State of California, which call for the favorable passage of this legislation. I have one from the president of the Cannery Workers Union, another from the Fishermen's Cooperative Association, and two from the Department of Fish and Game, of the State of California. I would like to have that made a part of the record. Senator GREEN. They will all be filed. 94247-49- -6 (Communications submitted by Senator Knowland are as follows:) FISHERMEN'S COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, San Pedro, Calif., April 8, 1949. Senator WILLIAM KNOWLAND, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Honorable SIR: We sincerely urge passage of the Tuna Convention Act of 1949. Cannery Workers Union of the Pacific, Los Angeles Harbor District, are on record favoring the Costa Rican and Mexican Tuna Treaty; also the enabling legislation. Ask that these matters be given favorable consideration. JAMES WAUGH, President. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hon. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DIVISION OF FISH AND GAME, DEAR SENATOR KNOWLAND: At the request of the California Fisheries Committee, I am pleased to transmit to you a bill which it is respectfully requested you present to the Congress for enactment. The bill in question is enabling legislation for the International Convention for the Scientific Investigation of Tuna, concluded by the United States of America and the United Mexican States at Mexico on January 25, 1949. We understand that this convention is now or soon will be before the Senate for ratification. The California Fisheries Committee is a group formed in California a number of years ago at the request of the United States Department of State to act as a liaison and advisory body on the international fisheries questions, particularly in relation to the tuna fishery. Its membership includes representatives of the California State Division of Fish and Game, and the State attorney general's office, the American Fishermen's Tuna Boat Association, the California Fish Canners Association, the Fishermen's Cooperative Association, the Lower California Fishermen's Association (of San Diego), International Fishermen and Allied Workers of America (CIO), and the Cannery Workers Union of the Pacific (A. F. of L.). This committee was instrumental in bringing the proposed tuna convention to the attention of the State Department, and has urged its passage for some time. The committee met on March 31, 1949, in order to formulate their ideas on what the enabling legislation should include. The members at that time expressed fears that a Federal agency might seek to dominate the proposed International Commission for the Scientific Investigation of Tuna, and that legislation sponsored by this agency might be presented to Congress. The members of the committee felt that it was highly desirable from the standpoint of the industry and of the several Pacific Coast States that no Federal agency dominate the Commission, but that the Department of State should have a free hand in its operation. The bill which is submitted herewith has been discussed thoroughly and all aspects have been considered. The committee feels that if this enabling legislation were enacted, it would insure the successful operation of the Commission in the best interests of the industry, the Pacific Coast States, and above all the entire Nation. Copies of this bill are also being sent to other Members of the California delegation in the Congress, as follows: Senator Downey and Congressmen King and McKinnon. Would it be possible for you and Senator Downey to make a joint presentation of this bill in the Senate? We are asking the Congressmen from San Pedro and San Diego to do the same in the House. Very truly yours, RICHARD S. CROKER, Chief, Bureau of Marine Fisheries, and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hon. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND, United States Senator, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR KNOWLAND: At the request of the California Fisheries Committee, I am pleased to transmit to you a bill which it is respectfully requested you present to the Congress for enactment. The bill in question is enabling legislation for the convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica for the establishment of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission which was signed at Washington May 31, 1949. We understand that this convention will soon be before the Senate for its advice and consent. The committee also asked me to convey to you its request that you do what you can to assure the early ratification of this convention. As noted in my letter of April 7, 1949, regarding the Mexican tuna treaty, the California Fisheries Committee is a group formed in California a number of years ago at the request of the United States Department of State to act as a liaison and advisory board on international fisheries questions, particularly those dealing with the tuna fishery. Its membership includes representatives from all segments of the tuna industry, as well as interested agencies of the State of California. This committee has urged the passage of treaties with the other American countries regarding the tuna fishery, and is very pleased that the negotiations recently concluded in Washington have turned out so well. The proposed bill which the committee is asking you to submit is identical with a proposed bill now being circulated through the various agencies of the United States Department of State and Department of the Interior. Although it differs somewhat from the legislation which you introduced in behalf of the committee regarding the Mexican tuna treaty, it embodies the safeguards of that other legislation, and makes it clear that no single Federal agency will dominate an interAmerican commission. The committee feels that if this enabling legislation were enacted, it would insure the successful operation of the Commission in the best interests of all concerned. Copies of this proposed bill are also being sent to other Members of the California delegation in the Congress, as follows: Senator Downey and Congressmen Doyle, King, and McKinnon. I was very pleased to have the opportunity to talk with you personally regarding both the Mexican and Costa Rican tuna treaties. As I pointed out to you at that time, the Costa Rican treaty is far more important than just a tuna treaty with Costa Rica. Not only does it serve as an approach to better relationships with that nation, but it is the first step toward the unification of all countries interested in the tuna fishery in one inter-American commission. As I pointed out to you, the present treaty allows for the later adherence of any other interested nation. Very truly yours, RICHARD S. CROKER, Chief, Bureau of Marine Fisheries, and Senator KNOWLAND. I express appreciation to the committee. Senator FULBRIGHT. You know of no objection at all, do you? OREGON AND WASHINGTON ARE ALSO INTERESTED Senator FULBRIGHT. The situation is, as far as you know, about the same with the other States; that is, Oregon and Washington. Are they interested in this? Senator KNOWLAND. Well, to a lesser extent. I think, though, there are others who could speak with more knowledge than I. I do think the bulk of tuna fish falls in California rather than Oregon or Washington. |