move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil."

While we agree that implementing legislation will be desirable, we believe that such legislation should be deferred until a later date to permit further study of a number of complex problems involved in such implementation. Detailed study will be necessary to establish the mechanics for prescribing the species of "living organisms" covered by the Convention and for dealing with other aspects of the Convention. Several factors may influence the methods which may best be employed for implementing the Convention in light of the particular interests of the United States.

It is possible, of course, that legislation may be desirable under which foreign-flag vessels would be permitted to harvest fishery resources of the Continental Shelf claimed by the United States under licensing arrangements which would follow an approach somewhat similar to that suggested for territorial waters.

The development of suitable legislative authority for the issuance of licenses, for prescribing charges to be paid to the United States as the possessor of sovereign rights over these fishery resources, the consideration and resolution of workable methods for enforcing license provisions, and a variety of other pertinent factors pose complex problems which should be studied at length before an attempt is made to implement this feature of the Convention. It is in light of these considerations that we believe that the reference to the fishery resources of the Continental Shelf should be deleted from the pending legislation and be left for full consideration at a more propitious time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That ends my statement.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. McKernan. You reveal yourself to be a States' righter of sorts.

You referred on page 3 to these highly self-sufficient foreign fleets, which come off our coasts and stay there, and who even use passenger vessels to exchange crews; water vessels that come alongside. Let us say that the United States or some segment of the U.S. fishing industry decided to mount such an expedition to fish over the coast of Siberia, for example. Do we have any comparable equipment that we could use in going off the coast of Siberia and staying there for 9 months, say? Mr. McKERNAN. No, Mr. Chairman, we do not have comparable equipment, built for this purpose, such as do other large high seas fishing nations. The U.S.S.R., and Japan, are examples, of countries that are now using modern up-to-date high seas fishing fleets off our coasts.

We perhaps could launch such an expedition, with existing hulls after modifications and so forth, one could predict in advance that this kind of inefficient operation would hardly be economical in view of our high labor costs, and the fact that we do not have the vessels now constructed specifically for this purpose as do these other nations.

Senator BARTLETT. Yesterday Senator Kennedy, Congressman Keith, and Mr. Ackert told about the presence of Societ vessels off the New England coast. They said some large vessels were fishing there.

What would be their size; do you know, Mr. McKernan?

Mr. McKERNAN. Yes. Some of these vessels are of the same general tonnage as our own, perhaps 500 or 600 tons. But in addition to this there are vessels that probably will have the greatest impact on the

resources which we call factory trawlers, some of which are upwards of 3,000 tons.

Now these are large vessels, much larger than any vessels in the American fleet. They are of very modern design. They bring the trawl in over the stern through a chute, in the hull itself. They can handle the fish efficiently on board, and can carry out any one of a number of processing operations which in a sense complete the processing of these fish and then land them in many instances. These vessels are highly self-sufficient.

Here again, some of the smaller vessels make up for their size by having adequate support vessels along with them. But many of these factory trawlers are quite self-sufficient, and perhaps need only to be refueled and have additional water and perhaps stores taken aboard to stay at sea and fish off our coasts or the coasts of any other nation in the world, for literally months at a time.

Senator BARTLETT. Now our tuna boats go down off the coast of South America. Do we have any fishing vessels that range to more distant oceans?

Mr. McKERNAN. We have some of these same tuna vessels that have ranged very widely on the high seas. Our tuna fleet is probably the most modern fleet that the United States has.

But as was pointed out yesterday, by Senator Magnuson, this fleet in itself is not a modern fleet, and here again

Senator BARTLETT. It is just the most modern?

Mr. McKERNAN. It is just the most modern of what I consider to be an obsolete fishing fleet. I consider the U.S. fishing fleet to be perhaps the most obsolete of any of the large fishing nations in the world. Încidentally, Senator Magnuson was right yesterday, he wasn't certain of the status of United States in relation to world fisheries, but our present catch of some 5.3 billion pounds, in relation to the total world catch of over 90 billion pounds, puts us at a poor fifth in catch of fish in the world, where about 10 years ago we were No. 2, behind Japan.

Senator BARTLETT. My memory has it our total catch per annum hasn't changed greatly, it is that the other nations have gone ahead. Am I right?

Mr. McKERNAN. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Our total catch has remained between 4.5 and 5.7 billion pounds per year for a long time, whereas the world catch of fish has doubled in every decade in the last three decades, if my memory serves me correctly.

Other nations are recognizing, as I hope we are, belatedly, that there are really riches in the sea and these riches can be harvested by nations that get out on the high seas and catch these living resources.

Senator BARTLETT. You mentioned that U.S. fishermen find very considerable difficulty in competing against, and I use your own words, these large-scale subsidized operations. I am not going to ask you, nation by nation, to explain to the committee what these measures of subsidy may be in each individual case, but I should like to ask you, after agreeing wholeheartedly with you that these other fleets are subsidized, ask you what is the degree and nature of subsidation of the American fishing effort?

Mr. McKERNAN. Well, it is not very great, Mr. Chairman. The American fishermen are not subsidized to the extent of most fishermen in the highly developed fishing nations of the world, and in fact, in at

least one instance in my opinion the American fishermen are handicapped.

I will explain that a little bit later by pointing out that some nations have a subsidy for export species of fish which are caught. That is, those species of fish which are going to be exported to other countries, and in a sense bring in dollar reserves to these countries. They are in fact subsidized in the capture of those fish.

Other nations subsidize the construction of fishing vessels, and fishing gear-efficient, modern fishing gear. Other nations provide very low-cost interest rates, and long-term loans, amortization, rapid amortization of the capital investments, and some of them supply processing plants and processing equipment and gear.

None of these things are supplied by the United States to any degree. Now on the contrary, we do help our fishing fleet to some extent. We have a fishing boat loan provision, which has been very successful. Unfortunately, it is really a minor help, or indirect subsidy. It is a loan program which loans money for the rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing fishing boats.

But here again, Mr. Chairman, if you have an old, obsolete boatobsolete by design and by age-simply the rebuilding of this boat, while it helps, doesn't really overcome the problem of competing with these other very modern fleets, on common fishing resources.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, there is a bill in Congress now sponsored by Senator Magnuson and yourself, and other Congressmen and Senators, especially interested and sympathetic toward the cause of the American fishermen, that is now up for consideration here in the Senate. This would increase the fishing vessel subsidy, and apply it on a countrywide basis. This is the other matter I was going to bring up, where I consider the American fisherman is actually being handicapped by his Government, in not being able to purchase a vessel where he can get this vessel the cheapest.

In other words, if I want to buy a radio or television, I can buy one perhaps made in Japan or buy one made perhaps in other countries where these can be manufactured more economically.

Senator BARTLETT. Or if you want to buy an airplane, you can buy it wherever it is built, or if you want to buy a diesel engine for a railroad, you can buy it anywhere.

Mr. McKERNAN. That's right. But in the case of fishing vessels, our fishermen are required to buy these within the United States Our studies show, for the most part, the differential in cost of construction of the average fishing vessel is very near 50 percent. That is especially true of steel-hulled fishing vessels.

If one were to buy this vessel from a foreign country, several European countries, as well as from perhaps Japan, one could purchase this vessel for 50 percent of the cost of construction in the United States.

Now there are other matters which make competition difficult for our fishermen, matters such as the cost of labor, and our heavily unionized fisheries. This matter of the cost differential in construction is a very important matter and in my opinion in New England, for example, this cost differential has by itself made our groundfish fishery uneconomical in relation to foreign fishing fleets. These foreign fleets as we mentioned before, are subsidized both directly and indirectly, and they compete on a common market with our products.

Senator BARTLETT. We had testimony to that effect yesterday, relating specifically to New Bedford. The landings decreased in volume and value steadily, the witness said.

In relation to what you are saying, here is a letter to Chairman Magnuson from a fisherman at Aberdeen, Wash., Verne Gramling. He wants to know about the subsidy bill. He has been fishing salmon, he says, commercially for 19 years, but the boat he owns is 40 years old. Á little outmoded, a bit outdated.

Mr. McKERNAN. Mr. Chairman, we even have one fishing boat still in operation that was constructed during the Civil War, believe it or not.

Senator BARTLETT. Unless we do something about it, it will probably be in service at the end of the second century.

Now we have been discussing the operations of the foreign fishing fleets off the New England coast. We know that the Japanese and Russians are very aggressive fishermen and they moved into the bottom fisheries in the North Pacific without asking you to give an informed scientific opinion on the subject, because I judge that to be impossible, we don't know enough yet.

Do you think the oceans of the world, Mr. McKernan, are going to support for too long this doubling of the catch every decade? Aren't we going to exhaust this priceless resource?

Mr. McKERNAN. Mr. Chairman, this is not a simple question to answer. It is my considered opinion that if these nations learn to live together in regard to fishing common resources of the oceans, these resources need not be exhausted. They are renewable resources, and if they are properly nurtured and properly conserved, they can and will produce protein for future generations forever.

On the other hand, there can be no question but what the unrestricted harvest by nations without careful conservation-and I don't mean words, but actions to conserve these resources jointly-certainly threatens very seriously some of the important world resources. very much concerned about the ground fish resources on the Grand Banks and George's Bank in the northwestern Atlantic.

I am

We have what has been a relatively successful international commission that has been in effect for about 11 years, and it has adopted conservation regulations which up until the present time have been reasonably successful. I say that, Mr. Chairman, because the accurate measures of the success are very complicated mathematical problems that are being struggled with by scientists of the 13 nations. at the present time.

But I am terribly concerned because the fishing intensity in the northwestern Atlantic is increasing tremendously and I doubt, and I have had my lifetime of experience in this field, I doubt that the present conservation measures in the northwestern Atlantic, are adequate to continue to serve these resources.

Other nations of the world, such as our neighbor to the north, Canada, is also very much concerned about this. Canada, you know, is noted for its fishery scientists who are very well-known people and very competent in this field. I believe that we are going to have to take another very careful look, not only at the measures themselves, but even perhaps at the mechanisms for handling these resources.

Now you and I saw the development of very great rapid development in the Bering Sea of Japanese and Russian fishing for ground

fish resources in the past 9 years. In my opinion, some of these resources have been depleted at the present time. I am referring to some of the resources of flounder in the Eastern Bering Sea. I would call to your attention that both Japan and Russia have recently diverted fleets of their trawlers from this area, and while the data is not available, and while scientists might question my conclusion, I believe from my experience and from my knowledge of this situation, that these resources have been seriously reduced.

Senator BARTLETT. They have gone in there, in other words the Japanese and Russians, and without any effort at all at conservation, any attempt to seek to preserve the resources, have fished and fished until apparently there is nothing left in certain species. And if that isn't true literally today, at the rate which has been employed in the past, if that is to be continued, it will be true on some early tomorrow. Would you agree with my statement?

Mr. McKERNAN. This is true. In the eastern North Pacific Ocean we do not have at the present time adequate scientific research, or adequate scientific measures taken to insure the conservation of the ground fish resources of this area and here again, of course, I must call to your attention what I consider to be the very outstanding work done by the North Pacific Convention and the Halibut Convention, in relation to salmon and halibut resources.

So I am in a sense excluding those.

Senator BARTLETT. Let's talk about halibut for a moment. Isn't it true that not too many years ago halibut was virtually depleted in the North Pacific?

Mr. McKERNAN. That is correct; in about 1930, or in the very early thirties, the catch of halibut had declined to about one-half of its former yield.

Senator BARTLETT. Then what happened?

Mr. McKERNAN. Then an international convention was formed and very strict conservation measures were taken immediately.

You will remember an outstanding scientist of the Pacific coast, Dr. W. F. Tompson, was instrumental in organizing the scientific program. Rigid conservation measures were taken, and restrictions were placed on our fishermen. Before regulation they fished about 10 months, and afterward they were cut down to about 1 month's fishing.

Senator BARTLETT. They submitted to this voluntarily and even gladly, because they knew, the Canadian and American fishermen, if they didn't do this, there wouldn't be any more halibut left. Is that right?

Mr. McKERNAN. That is correct.

And over the years this conservation program, which I believe is a worldwide model, has increased the annual production of these fish, up to where at the present time this resource is yielding about 75 million pounds a year. You will remember I mentioned 30 million it had sunk to in the early 1930's, or late 1920's.

Senator BARTLETT. But if the Japanese move south of the Aleutians and if the Russians, who are party to no compact at all, decided to go in there and fish for halibut it is going to be worse very soon than it was in the early thirties and the north Pacific halibut fishery will be in the same sad plight. In other words, there won't be anything left. Mr. McKERNAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think I agree with you.

23-530-63- -7