FIGURE 4.-Russian motherships and catcherships cruise off the Massachusetts coast. Part of a group of photographs made by the Boston Globe and New Bedford Times and presented to the committee by Congressman Hastings Keith.

FIGURE 5.-The Turgenev (PT-308) of the Russian fishing fleet as it was photographed off the Massachusetts coast. Vessel's name is given in both Cyrillic and English alphabets. Picture is part of a set taken by the Boston Globe and New Bedford Times and presented to the committee by Congressman Hastings Keith,

Senator BARTLETT. I know that the committee will welcome their receipt, but I wish that they did not have to be in existence. They will be helpful to our committee members.

This reminds me that not too long ago, Senator Kennedy showed some motion pictures in this very building, which frightened me, showing the size and composition of the fishing fleets off the New England coast.

Your statement has been excellent and powerful, Congressman Keith.

Senator Magnuson?

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman, in your statement you say you have already ranged beyond the reach of this legislation. I wouldn't worry about that at all, and I think that you will agree with me that this is just the beginning. And what you say further on, of course, is correct, that it is dictated under the circumstances, that there be some understanding between the nations in the world about the fishing grounds and their Continental Shelves or sooner or later we are going to have chaos, I think you will agree with me.

You mentioned also the economic impact. We have dropped from second in commercial fishing, tonwise and dollarwise, in the world, to fifth in a very short time. The Department of the Interior has compiled some revealing statistics which I should like to introduce at this point.

FISHERIES OF THE WORLD

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

The 1961 world commercial catch of fish, crustaceans, mollusks, etc., totaled a record 90.7 billion pounds, according to the "Yearbook of Fishery Statistics, 1961" released by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The 1961 catch was 8 percent over the 1960 production of 83.8 billion pounds and was more than double the volume taken in 1938 and 1948-just before and after World War II.

Five countries accounted for well over 50 percent of the 1961 world catch. Japan (16.3 percent) continued to be the leading fishing nation of the world. Peru, the third-place fishing nation in 1960, moved up to second position in 1961 with 12.7 percent of the world catch. In third place was China (mainland) with 12.2 percent, followed by the U.S.S.R. (7.9 percent), and the United States (7.1 percent).

In 1956, the United States ranked second only to Japan as a fishing nation. In 1961, it followed not only Japan but also Peru, China (mainland), and the U.S.S.R. Peru's catch has risen phenomenally from only 470 million pounds in 1955 to 11.6 billion pounds in 1961, due chiefly to the development of the anchovy fishery.

Asia, excluding the U.S.S.R., accounted for 41 percent of the world catch. Europe, excluding the U.S.S.R., accounted for 20 percent, followed by South America, 15 percent; North America, 10 percent; U.S.S.R., 8 percent; and Africa, 6 percent. An insignificant quantity, percentagewise, was taken in Oceania. About 37 percent of the world catch was marketed fresh. Reduction into meal and oil accounted for 23 percent; cured, 18 percent; and canned and frozen, 10 percent each. The remaining 2 percent was used for miscellaneous purposes.

Japan..
Peru..

World catch of fish, crustaceans, mollusks, etc., by countries, 1961

Now, pursuing that line, you do mention the 3-mile limit. Is the words "3-mile limit" mentioned in the bill?

Mr. KEITH. I don't believe that it is mentioned.

The CHAIRMAN. I just read it over again. Of course that is a natural assumption as we always think in terms of the 3-mile limit, which was a legal fiction, probably dating back to the prohibition days.

Mr. KEITH. I believe the bill may refer to the continental limits. And this is a 3-mile limit, or territorial limits, rather.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; territorial limits. I can't conceive, on the fishing question, that we could have any responsibility to ourselves, our people or anyone else if we would suggest that we are going to limit ourselves in our fishing to 3 miles.

I think there is some agreement that can be reached. I think that has to happen, for the sake of other countries, as well as our own. So, I am glad you mention that in your statement. There is one other thing I want to discuss with you. In the 87th Congress I introduced Senate Resolution 392 and it was cosponsored by Senators Saltonstall, Ben Smith, Bartlett, Gruening, Neuberger, and Jackson. This resolution was reported by the Committee on Commerce and was passed by the Senate unanimously.

In this resolution, we called upon the United States and the President of the United States, to take the initiative and the leadership, as it

were, to call an international conference on the conservation of fish, both on the shelves, and on the high seas. We thought this would be acceptable to everyone, because if we don't conserve, we are going to be in trouble. Would you suggest from your statement that this proposed conference is one of the other things that we should be doing? Mr. KEITH. Most decidedly, I would concur. Our foreign policy, of course, reflects the sentiments of the American public and unless the American public

The CHAIRMAN. Let's say it should.

Mr. KEITH. It should, yes. And unless the American public is cognizant of the conservation problem as it pertains to the ocean, they won't demand of our President and his State Department that they reflect in their negotiations with other countries a real, firm, strong hand in this particular area. And you resolution did much to bring that to the attention of the Government as a whole, and this kind of hearing and the type of press that this problem has had in New England and Alaska and Florida and California and in Washington, can help our State Department with whom I have had several consultations on this very serious problem, in recognizing its importance in the scheme of things today and in particular, tomorrow.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no further questions. Thank you.

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Keith, you mentioned the importance of your area in commercial fishing. Is it not true that halibut used to be produced there, in considerable quantities?

Mr. KEITH. Yes.

Senator BARTLETT. What is the production of halibut now comparatively?

Mr. KEITH. I can't give you a specific breakdown. I don't have it available at hand, as to the type of fish that we are currently gathering. I know we have become extraordinarily successful in the scallop field recently.

Senator BARTLETT. But isn't it true that halibut has almost disappeared from the North Atlantic?

Mr. KEITH. I believe so.

Senator BARTLETT. I believe that to be the case.

And would you tell us, is that likely to be true of every other species of fish, if this indiscriminate fishing continues? Would you agree with that?

Mr. KEITH. That certainly is our feeling.

Senator BARTLETT. And you said that New Bedford was second only to San Pedro in the total value of landings. I would suspect that it might be in second place only because of the imported tuna that comes into San Pedro. I don't know if that is the case or not. But we do know that much imported tuna is landed at San Pedro. Mr. KEITH. Incidentally, we have begun to have some success in in the tuna field in our area. I believe 600 tons of tuna were landed over the weekend in the vicinity of New Bedford.

Senator BARTLETT. You are aware, are you not, Congressman Keith, that the House Armed Services Committee recently issued a report concerning these electronically equipped trawlers, pointing out the fear that they may constitute a hazard to the security of the United States in respect to our defense situation?

Mr. KEITH. I am aware of that. We have brought these things to the attention of the State Department and we know that the military is acquainted with it.