1. Consideration should be given to the formulation of 

 an international commodity agreement to cover trade in tuiia. Such 

 an agreement would be similar to, although not exactly the same as, 

 the International Wheat Agreement of 19h9i to which the United 

 States is a party. At the outset the United States might invite 

 those countries which are important producers, processors, and 

 consumers of tuna to join with it in prepairLng such a document 



for trade in tuna. The objectives of such an international 

 commodity agreement would be to stabilize production, processing, 

 and trade, increase consumption, and make the wisest possible use 

 of international tuna resources. In addition, such an agreement 

 would supersede any unilateral action undertaken by governments 

 now or in the future. 



Such action would not be contrary to our commitments under 

 the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Any document consum- 

 mated would necessarily have to be approved by the United States 

 Senate and legislation related to effectively carrying out the 

 agreement would have to be acted upon by both Houses of Congress. 

 Exploratory steps in this matter are being taken by the Department 

 of the Interior. 



2. The several different forms of tariff rates on the 

 various products of the tuna industry should be properly related. 

 There is no logical relationship between a h^ percent ad valorem 

 duty on tuna canned in oil, a 12|- percent duty on tuna canned in 

 brine, and no duty on frozen tuna. The actual level of rates for 

 these products is not suggested herein, only the suggestion that 

 whatever the actual levels of rates may be, that the duties on the 

 various products be properly related. The appropriate Executive 

 and Independent agencies can furnish technical information in this 

 regard which would help to accomplish this. 



h3li 



