And, I am not so sure that you may not agree with me that it won't be long until the Japanese will be there, too.

Senator BARTLETT. Senator Kennedy, you made reference to the Massachusetts statutes and asked they be incorporated in the record, and that was done. Other States, some other States at least, have similar statutes. But the fact of the matter is, is it not, that the States aren't equipped and ought not to be, to enforce legislation of the kind proposed here? This is a direct primary responsibility of the Federal Government.

Senator KENNEDY. I think that is very true, Senator. I think this legislation we are considering presently is peculiarly well equipped to supplement the various States' laws which are in existence. Certainly it does for my State of Massachusetts.

I agree with the point which you suggest, that the major enforcement agencies of the Federal Government, Bureau of Customs, various other enforcement agencies, are especially well equipped to enforce trespassers in this area. I think that this legislation certainly considers this factor and I think it is impressive in its sound resolution of this aspect.

The CHAIRMAN. And the State would have to call on the Coast Guard in these instances.

Senator KENNEDY. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And if the State could not act, which it cannot now do, real enforcement would mean that each coastal State concerned would have to acquire a navy of its own and that is a bit on the improbable side.

Senator KENNEDY. Very definitely, Senator. I completely agree with those observations.

Senator BARTLETT. Senator Kennedy, you mentioned an act, Canadian act, and a Russian law, bearing on this subject. Other coastal States have similar laws, have had for a long while and these will all be incorporated in the record. It would seem on preliminary examination that we are one of the principal maritime nations of the world, without any means of protection whatsoever, and as you said in your statement, your very effective statement, this bill, if enacted into law, as I hope will shortly be the case, would provide some muscle so badly needed. And I am sure that this will do as much good in Massachusetts, the Atlantic States and Gulf States, as in the Pacific. We need this everywhere.

I want to thank you very, very much for your appearance here Senator Kennedy.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure that you will be interested in an old legal decision in my State, Washington, stating that territorial water extends out as far as a man can row a boat in 1 day. It doesn't say what kind of boat or on what kind of day or in what kind of weather the limit is to be established. This decision probably suited the purpose, at that early date, whatever the purpose might have been, but today this definition is subject to a lifting of eyebrows at the least. Senator BARTLETT. Thank you.

The committee is honored to have another Member of Congress here to testify on this bill, Congressman Hastings Keith, also of Massachusetts. We welcome you.

STATEMENT OF HON. HASTINGS KEITH, U.S. CONGRESSMAN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, STATE OF

FROM THE 12TH

MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am Hastings Keith and I represent the 12th Massachusetts Congressional District. I am here today in support of Senate bill 1988, and would like to note at the outset that I have filed similar legislation in the House along with your distinguished colleague from the State of Alaska, Ralph Rivers.

Senator BARTLETT. I congratulate you.

Mr. KEITH. Thank you, sir.

I consider the prompt enactment of this legislation important to the well-being of the American fishing industry. I consider that its significance to that vital segment of our economy extends far beyond its statutory scope. It is my hope that this legislation will be a first step a new foundation-in the clarification and unmistakable enunciation of our rights on grounds that have been fished by Americans since the founding of the Colonies as well as in traditional American fisheries in the Pacific, the Bering Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico.

Further, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that passage of this bill will serve notice to all-particularly our own fishermen that the United States does not intend to forfeit or relinquish by default its claim to the resources of the sea and its position as a leading fishing nation

This bill can have no direct effect on the hungry armada that has invaded our fishing grounds, but it should act as a strong deterrent to those vessles which in the recent past have ventured boldly inshore. I think it can be a step to a more fundamental solution.

I am privileged to represent in Congress an area that has been widely known and highly regarded throughout the history of American commercial fishing. It includes Cape Cod and the coastal towns of Plymouth County to Boston Harbor; Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket and the famous port of New Bedford, where the sea is as much a way of life today as it was when the city's courageous whalers roamed all the oceans of the world. Those romantic days are gone forever, but fishing is still one of our chief concerns. New Bedford's fleet of some 200 vessels last year landed a catch valued at nearly $16 million-making it the leading east coast port and second only to San Pedro in total value of landings in the United States. In addition, of course, we have many smaller fishing ports in our district, among them Provincetown, Plymouth, Sandwich, and Woods Hole, which is also the certer of oceanographic and marine biological research on the Atlantic coast.

At this point I would like to bring to the attentior of the committee and the Congress and the public, too, an editorial which appeared in, I believe, the current issue of Life magazine, which is entitled "$2.3 Billion Should Go Into the Ocean."

The thrust of this editorial is that as the underdeveloped nations of the world grow stronger, and their appetites increase, the needs for protein will be extraordinarily heavy, or the demands for protein. And here in this country we will have to considerably increase our fish protein diet, if we are to maintain the strength and virility which this Nation needs in the rugged world in which we live.

Senator BARTLETT. Would you care to have that editorial in the record?

Mr. KEITH. I would like to very much. I regret I don't have it at hand.

Senator BARTLETT. It will be placed in the record.

[Life Magazine, Aug. 30, 1963]

$2.3 BILLION SHOULD GO INTO THE OCEAN

Why has the administration announced a new program to spend $2.3 billion during the next 10 years on oceanographic research?

Why does the administration want to parcel out this sum among the U.S. Navy and 14 agencies with 56 percent of it allocated for the kind of "basic research" once defined as finding out what questions to ask?

Why should the U.S. Congress and the U.S. public tolerate, let alone support, such a vaguely defined, long-range and perhaps open-ended exercise in Federal spending?

The answers lie in the very character of American geography. Even as the United States thrusts into space it does so from a continent that is in fact a large island enveloped by massive oceans. Whoever knows most about those oceans holds the advantage in the struggle for command of the seas, holds the lead in reaching for the fabulous unknown resources of the ocean floor. "Because we're such a big island the public doesn't realize this," says one of the United States most famous oceanographers, Roger Revelle of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at La Jolla, Calif. "We have to show the flag in oceanography all over the world."

The administration's new program, which Congress and the public should endorse, means coming to grips with oceans of ignorance just as vital as the far reaches of space.

In fiscal year 1964 the United States is spending just $156 million on searching and probing the seas that cover 71 percent of the earth's surface, providing the rain, decide the climate, swirl the currents that help make a nation in Britain and a wilderness in Labrador at equivalent latitude. In the same fiscal year the United States is spending $4 billion in space. But the new administration oceanographic campaign, without prejudice to the space effort, will launch the kind of research fleet-cruisers, floating laboratories, submarines capable of exploration 18,000 feet below, a new bathyscaphe for 36,000 feet below-that can perform the critical mission. Some reasons for coming to grips with the oceans: Defense: The United States least vulnerable strategic weapon is the Polarisbearing nuclear submarine, 41 of which have been programed to date. Polaris sweeps enemy coastlines, in vulnerable because it is undetectable. But the U.S. Navy's own antisubmarine warfare planning against the U.S.S.R.'s 450 or so submarines aims to make all submarines just as detectable and just as vulnerable as surface craft. "There isn't an ocean in the world big enough to lose the sound of a pistol fired at the right depth," said Columbus O'Donnell Iselin II of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod, and already the Navy has batteries of hydrophones installed on the edges of the continental shelves and midocean islands to locate submarines hundreds of miles away. It is essential to protect Polaris through the shifting states of the art of sea war by exploring jet-stream currents submarines can ride and thermal layers and sea-floor mountains they can hide behind, also by mapping navigational landmarks in the deep. As of now only 3 percent of the ocean floor is mapped.

Food: By 1980 the United States will need perhaps as much as an added 3 billion pounds of seafood to maintain its protein diet. The needs of undeveloped nations run much higher. But the U.S. fishermen have been humbled by Russians, Japanese, and Peruvians and the proud old Yankee fishing banks off Cape Cod sometimes look like a Soviet lake. The Russians are even boasting about new floating fish factories in which automation navigates the vessel, searches out the fish, hauls in the catch, freezes it and packages it for the long journey home. In this situation the administration wants to increase the United States present annual catch of 31⁄2 million tons by 1972-among other processes, by cultivating undersea "fish farms" along the Continental Shelf.

Mining: The fabulous success of the U.S. offshore oil industry points the way to establishment of an underwater mining industry within 5 to 10 years. Most realistic projects are the mining of "placer" deposits of precious metals in shallow

waters offshore, diamonds off South Africa, gold off Alaska, etc.

Fifteen-thousand feet beneath the Pacific near the Tuamotu Islands manganese nodules and other minerals litter the sea floor at a potential value of $1.5 million per square mile. In the administration's 10-year plan the Bureau of Mines even talks about sending an underwater "Lewis and Clark expedition" to find more metals resources. But this type of program has a deep-blue-yonder tone that bewilders inland Congressmen.

The U.S. oceanographers, a glamorous lot aboard their weatherbeaten survey ships, are going after all these prizes with unusual intramural advantages. By and large they are satisfied with the current administration budgets and they are not inaugurating the program with shouts and intrigues for "more." They also seem fairly satisfied with their loose, almost casual grouping under the Interagency Committee on Oceanography (ICO) of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. There seems remarkably little duplication and interagency bickering and there is no demand for an oceanography czar assigned to determine priorities, wipe out confusion, obliterate redtape McNamara-style. The $2.3 billion, if approved, will therefore be parceled out amicably among the Navy (36 percent), the National Science Foundation (22 percent), the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (15 percent), the Coast and Geodetic Survey (12 percent) and 11 other agencies ranging from the Atomic Energy Commission to the Public Health Service.

"The day a Russian Polaris-type submarine surfaces off New York City and waves its red flag, you bet we'd have a crash program," the Navy's oceanographers add, just in case. The Navy gets unfailingly agitated about oceanography when the Russians turn five ships loose to research the Gulf Stream off the U.S. coast, which they did last summer. And the Navy is never more effective than when storming ahead on such quiet oceanographic projects as mapping the bottom of the Gulf of Siam, which it is doing right now. But the administration's program sets the Nation on course into its new oceanic age in an orderly manner that will probably render a crash program unnecessary.

What the oceanographers do want is more attention-from Congress, from the public, from places far from the sea-as they set forth on the new venture. They are getting some. Already more than 5 million skindivers are questing. Already family-type submarines are on the market. Hundreds of thousands or more Americans remember the Link trainer, that instrument of torture in which they were flung about blindly while learning to fly in what now seems like the age before last. Where was Link last week-Edwin A. Link, the inventor, that is? Now 59 years old, he was busy on the oceanography ship Sea Diver in Chesapeake Bay putting mice through pressure tests equivalent to pressures found at 2,000 feet below as a prelude to indoctrinating humans. The quest for knowledge changes environments, but its spirit remains the same.

The CHAIRMAN. I read this editorial, Mr. Keith, and it is very good. I read it with some relish, as oceanography has long been the concern of myself and this committee. And the editorial points this up well. But it does point up one phase of it, the fishing and food phase. Mr. KEITH. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Obviously, the fishing industry is one of vital importance to us. It is important to the entire country, and that is why the intensifying activity of foreign fleets close off our shores is viewed with alarm, and why American fishermen are calling for countermeasures to protect our interests.

Incidents within the 3-mile limit, which would be the primary concern of this hill, have been building in frequency and I was very interested in the chairman's comments in this regard on August 6, when the bill was introduced in the Senate. The importance of such intrusions, whether by Russian whaleboats in Alaskan waters or by modern, electronically-equipped trawlers off Cape Cod and Cape Canaveral, cannot be minimized. They must be viewed not only with a regard for our fishing interests, but from a standpoint of national security, and in some instances, perhaps, as calculated acts of defiance. Economically speaking, however, such encroachments have been limited and would be of only minor consequence when isolated from

the main activities of these foreign fishing fleets. This bill, even if vigorously enforced as law, is obviously not going to halt the exploitation of these fleets in the Bering Sea and nearby Atlantic. Ì, of course, realize this but in my opinion this legislation is not as important for what it would do in enforcing the 3-mile limit-and this alone is important-as for what its enactment can symbolize, and, further, by establishing a solid ground for a clear national policy aimed both at protecting our fisheries and bolstering our fleet to make it more competitive with the massive, nationalized fleets now aggressively operating in traditional American waters.

Frankly, I think our fishermen have begun to wonder if the Government hasn't written them off as expendable.

A few days ago I met with a group of captains from my district just back from Georges Bank. They painted a rather gloomy picture of the future of their industry. In fact, they feel they may have no future in commercial fishing as they now know it, if something isn't done, and

soon.

I know of what they are talking, for last week I flew out beyond Nantucket and saw for myself one of these giant fleets. It stretched from one horizon to the other. I lost count when I got to 75 vessels. They were of all descriptions; fully equipped factory ships, tenders, and ultramodern stern-ramp trawlers the size of transatlantic liners. Systematically and with the precision and purpose of a naval task force, they were harvesting hundreds of thousands of pounds of fish that would otherwise have been landed in American ports or left on the banks to stock future catches. With their factory ships the Russians are able to use all that they catch, freezing it, perhaps dehydrating it and sometimes canning it. Even the frames left from fileting are converted into fishmeal, along with so-called trash fish. The most telling comment on their thoroughness is that you never find sea gulls following their ships. There is nothing left even for the birds.

The Russians fish "harder" than we do, and in violation of accepted conservation practices, using small-mesh nets that make no allowance for the damage that can result from overfishing-from taking the "bait," as it is called, or undersized fish, and even, during some seasons, the spawn itself.

In this connection, I would like to quote a fisherman from my district, Capt. Henrique Duarte, of Provincetown, as reported in the New Bedford Standard-Times. Captain Duarte refers to a smallmesh Russian net his trawler snagged a week ago Wednesday near the Pollock Rip Lightship:

Nobody could excuse these guys-the Russians-with the argument they are fishing for whiting in those waters. They know those waters as well or better than we do now. This is strictly haddock ground and the net was full of baby haddock—shrimp couldn't have got through that net.

Captain Duarte claims, incidentally, that the Soviet fleet off Cape Cod is moving closer and closer inshore.

What the fishermen want to know, he says, is when the Russians will have to fish by the same ground rules we do. It is a shame for anyone to use gear like that. If something isn't done about it and done real soon there won't be a fish to catch out there.

I might say that just for having equipment like the Russian net aboard his trawler would have subjected him to a fine of $1,000.