trol of the Under Secretary of State, which is concerned solely with international fisheries problems. The Foreign Relations Committee has given close attention to requests for action in this field, continuing, thereby, the efforts at international conservation of fish resources begun by the United States-Canadian Halibut Convention of 1923 and the sockeye salmon convention of 1937. These two instruments set up scientific investigating commissions which gathered data that served as a basis for regulations that enabled these industries to survive. By this means, the supply of halibut and sockeye salmon has been increased and distress in the respective American fisheries alleviated. The three conventions that were before the Senate during the Eighty-first Congress followed closely this successful pattern. 1. TUNA CONVENTIONS WITH MEXICO AND COSTA RICA The great tuna-fishing grounds of the world are in the high seas off the coasts of Central and South America. The American tuna industry, one of our richest fisheries, takes about 95 percent of the total catch, and has increased sevenfold during the last 22 years. This phenomenal growth has threatened the supply of tuna, tuna-like fishes, and live bait for tuna on which the American industry depends. Since the fishing and bait grounds are entirely off foreign shores and foreign nationals participate in the fisheries, the United States must undertake conservation measures in cooperation with other countries, principally Mexico and Costa Rica. Inasmuch as very little is known about the habits of the tuna, the first step toward conservation is scientific investigation of the life cycle and habits of the fish. The two conventions with Mexico and Costa Rica were designed to supply needed knowledge about the tuna by establishing two commissions for the scientific investigation of the tuna fisheries of the eastern Pacific Ocean. The function of these commissions will be to determine the means and manner of preventing the depletion of tuna and tuna-like fishes and of maintaining their harvest at the maximum level. The conventions were very similar and complement each other. The differences lay only in the areas covered and the type of tuna to be investigated. A public hearing by a subcommittee headed by Senator Green disclosed unanimous approval of the two conventions by interested agencies and industries. Speedy action by the committee and Senate followed. CONVENTION WITH MEXICO FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION OF TUNA Dates Signed at Mexico City, January 25, 1949 Public Hearings in Senate, July 14, 1949. Documents Executive K, Eighty-first Congress, Senate Executive Report 11, Eighty- CONVENTION WITH COSTA RICA FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTER-AMERICAN TROPICAL TUNA COMMISSION Since the two tuna conventions discussed above were not selfexecuting, implementing legislation was required to set up the necessary United States administrative machinery; to confer on United States officials the power to make rules and regulations; to prescribe penalties for the failure to comply with the rules and regulations; and to authorize the appropriation of necessary funds estimated to be $113,957 in 1951, $861,000 in 1952, and $366,000 thereafter. Three bills, S. 1642, S. 2133, and S. 2633, all introduced by Senator Knowland, were before the committee. Since S. 2633, introduced on October 4, 1949, was designed to give effect to both tuna conventions. in a single bill, it was the resolution acted on. The committee heard testimony by a representative of the Department of State in support on July 10, 1950 and reported the legislation favorably with one minor amendment to the Senate. After passage by the Senate, the House amended and passed the bill on August 23. The Senate agreed to the House amendments. August 24, 1950. Documents S. 2633. (See also previous bills, Senate Report 2094. See Congressional Record, same date. Do. Signed by President September 7, 1950. Public Law 764. 3. CONVENTION FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES In the case of the tuna fisheries, no substantial depletion of fish has taken place yet but past experience in other fishing grounds indicated that the time for action to prevent further depletion of the fisheries was at hand. In the Northwest Atlantic, on the other hand, the supply of food fish such as cod and the rosefish had been shrinking alarmingly for a number of years and conservation was long overdue. Since 1937 the interested nations have been trying to agree on a convention to protect the fisheries in the North Atlantic. After a failure to conclude an effective agreement in 1946, the State Department took the position that the Northwest Atlantic should be considered a separate area from the North Atlantic for conservation purposes and invited to a conference in 1949 those nations having interests in the area. An international convention for Northwest Atlantic fish eries was agreed on which provided for a commission to collect, collate, and disseminate information and make recommendations for maintaining the supply of fish in that area. Since the convention followed the pattern established by previous fisheries agreements and strong support was voiced by all interested parties, the subcommittee under the chairmanship of Senator Green recommended approval of the agreement and the Senate gave its quick consent to ratification. Dates Signed at Washington, February 8, 1949. Public hearings in Senate, July 14, 1949. Approved by Senate, August 17, 1950. Documents Executive N, Eighty-first Congress, Senate Executive Report 10, Eighty- See Congressional Record, same date. As with the tuna conventions, the Northwest Atlantic fisheries conventions required implementing legislation. This legislation, S. 2801, however, was handled by the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee in the Senate and reference to it is made here only to round out the picture on fisheries legislation. 4. CONVENTION ON THE EXTENSION OF PORT PRIVILEGES Canadian and United States halibut fishermen in the North Pacific area have found it to their mutual advantage to be able to use ports in each others' countries to land and ship fish, acquire gear and supplies, and for other purposes. Such privileges have been accorded to our fishermen for 50 years on a year-to-year basis, but to Canadian fishermen only for two short war periods. This convention makes these informal reciprocal arrangements permanent and mutual by providing that American vessels fishing in the North Pacific halibut fishery shall have the right to enter Canadian ports and there to (1) land their catches of halibut and sablefish subject to customs laws; (2) obtain supplies, repairs, and equipment; and (3) sell their catch in bond for export and tranship that catch in bond to any port in Canada. Reciprocal privileges and rights were accorded Canadians engaged in the same fisheries in American ports. No financial or implementing legislation was required for this convention. Since all major interests, government and private, gave the convention vigorous support, the committee and Senate approved it quickly. Dates Signed at Ottowa, March 24, 1950- Documents Executive M, Eighty-first Congress, Senate Executive Report 6, Eighty- K. BRIDGES AND BOUNDARY LEGISLATION The existence of long land and river boundaries between the United States and its neighbors to the north and south means that many problems that would normally be of only local concern assume inter national significance. Thus, bridges over international rivers, use of international boundary waters for sanitation or irrigation purposes, or the mere construction of a fence along the border, frequently require negotiation with foreign governments and legislative action by the Congress. A number of projects of this type were considered by the Eighty-first Congress. 1. TREATY WITH CANADA CONCERNING USES OF THE WATERS OF THE NIAGARA RIVER Diversions of waters of the Niagara River for power and other purposes are governed by the International Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Temporary diversions, especially during the war period, were effected by means of exchange of notes between Canada and the United States. Studies have indicated that even greater use can be made of this natural resource without detriment to navigation, sanitation and the preservation of the scenic beauty of the Falls. This treaty was therefore negotiated to make possible new allocations. The Treaty makes permanent allocations between the United States and Canada of Niagara River waters for domestic, navigation, scenic, and electric power purposes; terminates parts of article V of the 1909 treaty with Canada; and replaces the present temporary international agreements for the allocation of waters. The waters are to be used in accordance with this priority: (1) Article III gives first priority to "water used and necessary for domestic and sanitary purposes and for the service of canals for the purposes of navigation"; (2) article IV directs that, after the purposes referred to in article III have been satisfied, water according to a definite schedule shall be allowed to pass over the Falls for the scenic spectacle during the tourist season and the daylight hours; (3) article V provides that after the water uses provided for in articles III and IV have been taken care of, the water in excess thereof may be diverted for power purposes; and article VI provides that such water shall be divided equally between the United States and Canada. During the public hearing and committee discussions on the Treaty, conflicting views as to how and by whom the additional power on the American side should be generated were presented. This question, in the opinion of the committee was not immediately involved in the approval of the treaty and would have to be resolved in separate legislation which would ultimately be passed by Congress. Lest there be any question on this point the committee recommended and the Senate adopted the following reservation to the treaty: The United States on its part expressly reserves the right to provide by Act of Congress for redevelopment, for the public use and benefit, of the United States share of the waters of the Niagara River made available by the provisions of the treaty, and no project for redevelopment of the United States share of such waters shall be undertaken until it be specifically authorized by Act of Congress. 2. NIAGARA FALLS BRIDGE COMMISSION In order to give the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission authority to bid for the purchase of the Queenston-Lewiston bridge across the Niagara River, resolutions were introduced to clarify the authority of the Commission to issue bonds for this purpose. The resolutions took the form of an amendment of the joint resolution creating the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission which was passed in 1939. While the Foreign Relations Committee had Senate Joint Resolution 73 pending before it, the House passed a companion measure, House Joint Resolution 208. The House bill, with a clarifying amendment, was reported to and passed by the Senate and subsequently passed again by the House. Dates Reported in House (House Joint Resolu- Passed Senate amended, August 9, 1949. Documents House Report 592. Congressional Record, same date. See Congressional Record, same date. Signed by President, August 17, 1949. Public Law 244. 3. OGDENSBURG BRIDGE In view of the ever-increasing traffic between the United States and Canada, the need for a bridge across the St. Lawrence in northern New York had become apparent and Ogdensburg seemed to afford the most appropriate site for such a bridge. During the Eightieth Congress, the Congress passed a bill (H. R. 3332) authorizing the construction of a bridge across the St. Lawrence River near Ogdensburg, N. Y. That bill was pocket-vetoed by the President on August 7, 1947. The legislation was reintroduced in the Eighty-first Congress without certain features, and, as passed, will permit the State of New York to construct, maintain, operate, and charge tolls on a bridge to be built at Ogdensburg. No cost to the Federal Government was involved. Dates Reported in Senate, July 25, 1950- Documents Senate Report 2165 (S. 3862). Do. Signed by President, August 19, 1950. Public Law 722. 4. DEL RIO AND RIO GRANDE CITY BRIDGES Since the Seventy-ninth Congress, there has been legislation on the books authorizing the construction of bridges across the Rio Grande River at or near Del Rio, and Rio Grande City, Tex. The original laws (Public Laws 609 and 579, 79th Cong., respectively) provided that construction of these bridges was to start and be completed within a specified time. Delays in the necessary arrangements with Mexico and the beginning of construction made it essential to extend the period of time covered by the original laws. The bills received routine consideration in Congress. |