Mr. DOWNING. The next witness that the committee is pleased to hear is Hon. Don Clausen, of the First District of California.

Congressman Clausen, it is a pleasure to have you before this com

mittee.

STATEMENT OF HON. DON H. CLAUSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to take a brief moment to compliment you and the preceding witness, the very distinguished gentleman from Washington, for your leadership in holding these hearings permitting the people who are genuinely concerned about this problem to express themselves forthrightly.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in support of legislation to establish a zone contiguous to our coast over which the United States will have exclusive fishery jurisdiction.

I have introduced this legislation in the House, and I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the measure.

However, since having introduced my bill, I have been consulting with Mr. Pelly, and he has pointed out that his bill would differ from mine, inasmuch as it would provide for the recognition of the Continental Shelf, or a 12-mile limit, whichever was greater. I am inclined to lean more favorably toward his concept, as far as the legislation is concerned.

While I introduced a bill for a 12-mile fishery zone, I want to make as clear as possible my belief that this is only a minimum distance. My congressional district borders on nearly 400 miles of Pacific coastline, and our fishermen are facing a problem now that may have most serious implications for the west coast fishing industry.

At this moment, a huge Soviet trawler fleet is fishing off our Pacific coast, making what one of my constituents termed a "systematic rape" of our fishing areas. The Soviet fleet is reported to be using small mesh nets that catch all fish with a complete disregard for the necessity of leaving immature fish to escape for reproductive fish conservation purposes.

Our own fishermen have consistently practiced excellent conservation procedures in order to obtain the maximum sustained yield from our marine resources. Governmental regulations require this effort, and the fishing industry has always been in agreement with these

measures.

On the other hand, many foreign fleets are not held to, and do not practice, any type of conservation measures. As a result of this, they use nets that do not allow immature fish to escape their trawling nets, and no fish are returned to the seas. Extinction of the fishery resources near our coast can be the only result of these practices.

It may be that a 12-mile limit will provide sufficient protection to our fishermen in some parts of the Nation's coastal areas, but off the California coast we must have a much wider fishing zone.

I would respectfully request that this committee approve a zone extending at least 40 to 50 nautical miles from our coast. A zone this

wide is needed to protect our marine resources from exploitation and desecration now by those who are unwilling to practice accepted conservation techniques.

Further, I strongly believe that we in the Congress should be looking toward the ultimate establishment of a 200-mile fishery zone off our shores. It would seem logical that, should the United States take this leadership, we could anticipate many of the other fishing nations of the world would follow.

In this way, we would lend encouragement to the development, expansion, and recognition of proper fish conservation practices. Our role among nations is one of leadership, and we could play that role in this area to protect our own fishermen, and to enhance the world's marine resources.

We must face the problem, Mr. Chairman. Other countries are going to increase their pressures to fish our waters-particularly those who would rather reap the harvest of our own conservation programs. It is vital, therefore, that we take the necessary steps now to protect our conservation efforts and, at the same time, our domestic fishing fleets that have courageously provided the leadership in judiciously harvesting the resources of the sea.

Our fisheremen cannot pass laws. Our fishermen cannot stop the invaders of their traditional fishing grounds. The responsibility for any such actions lies with us.

And, Mr. Chairman, it is a responsibility that we in Congress must accept. We must act with dispatch, for our fishermen are faced with the serious implications of this problem right now, with every indication that it will grow in scope.

I cannot overemphasize the urgency of this request. Let us act now to avoid having to react later. Today, throughout the world, we are faced with the unfortunate situation of trying to solve problems after the fact when foresight, commonsense, and some creative planning would have allowed us to avoid the problems altogether.

I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear here this morning. The decisions reached by this committee will have an important bearing on the future economy of the west coast, and I am sure you will give our problems careful scrutiny before making a final determination of this matter.

I think that I would like to extend my remarks at least to this extent: That certainly our principal interest is one of conservation, and also to encourage the adoption of conservation practices throughout the United States.

As you know, I am one of the authors of the legislation to establish demonstration plants for the fish protein concentrate, and certainly we here in the States are desirous of cooperating with other countries throughout the world. And, I believe, are sort of looked upon to exert the necessary amount of leadership, not only in the form of establishing legislation that will protect our fishermen, but also demonstrating to others that we are genuinely concerned about conservation of these marine resources that potentially will be so valuable as we try to feed a very hungry world.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me to appear here this morning.

Mr. DOWNING. The committee thanks you, Mr. Clausen, for a very valuable and significant statement.

Tell me, if the territorial expansion was extended to 200 miles, would that deprive us of any valuable fishing grounds, that you know of? Mr. CLAUSEN. I am sure, of course, Mr. Chairman, that this particular request is not politically realistic at this time.

As you note in my statement, I made the point that I believe that we should be giving some consideration to this, so that other people throughout the world can be planning toward this end.

It is principally designed, sir, to encourage conservation measures, with the thought being certainly that, with a 200-mile fishing zone off our coast, we could enhance our conservation as well as our processing potentials.

I realize that some of our own fishermen, and I know that some of our own fleets right in California, have a different point of view. I am representing the First District of California, and trying to present my particular position as requested by the people of my district.

Incidentally, while I am on that point, I would like to ask unanimous consent of the committee to insert immediately following my statement a statement from Mr. Fred L. Phebus, who is the secretarymanager of the Fishermen's Marketing Association in Eureka, Calif. He gave a similar statement before the Senate committee, and I would like to have it included following my statement at this point.

Mr. DOWNING. Without objection, the statement will be submitted in the record.

(Statement follows:)

STATEMENT BY FRED L. PHEBUS, SECRETARY-MANAGER, FISHERMEN'S MARKETING ASSOCIATION, EUREKA, CALIF.

Mr. Chairman, trawl fishing began on the Pacific coast, in the area around San Francisco, in 1876. At that time and for many years afterward the fishery was small and expanded slowly. The first trawl net used was known as a paranzella and was made up of very small mesh web. It was also towed by two boats. Later the otter trawl net, which was towed by one boat came into use.

As more fishermen and boats entered in to the fishery it became apparent that some action would have to be taken in regulating the size of mesh in the trawl to allow for escapement of small immature fish so that the fishery could be maintained on an optimum yield basis.

In the early 1930's when a sharp decline in the production of bottom fish occurred, the fishermen voluntarily went to larger mesh sizes in their nets. From 1935 to 1942 they adopted and used trawls made of 5'' mesh. This mesh size proved to be beneficial from the standpoint of labor involved in sorting the fish as the percentage of immature fish taken diminished sharply and it was only a few years before a marked increase in the catches of marketable fish was noted. The Washington Department of Fisheries and the California Fish and Game Commission then started experimenting with trawl nets of varying sizes of mesh and in 1947 the first net mesh law was passed by the California legislature which called for a 5'' mesh size. The law later was modified to read 4%" size mesh, but this was still comparable to the 5'' mesh which had been voluntarily adopted by the trawl fishermen earlier. This was due to the different method adopted in measuring the mesh.

This California law is still in effect and Oregon and Washington have comparable laws governing the mesh size of nets used in their territorial waters. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a conviction for violation of the mesh size laws of the Pacific coast states in the last 12 years. This in itself is a tribute to the fishermen as they do realize that the continuance of their fishing activities depend wholly upon their own conservation practices.

There is no doubt in the minds of fishermen, conservationists and state fisheries authorities that the minimum mesh size coupled with restrictions of delivery on certain species, for example, halibut and salmon, has been a boon to the trawling industry and other fisheries.

But now we are faced with a foreign nation invading our narrow west coast continental shelf with larger and more powerful boats, pulling gigantic nets of very small mesh size, literally denuding the same areas that we have stabilized by our conservative methods of production.

Some have foolishly said that we should get out there and compete with the Russians. Compete with what? Our boats are small by comparison, but perfectly adequate for our needs as all of our fishing activity has taken place in our own front yard, so to speak. Are we suddently to change our mode of fishing, picking large factory trawlers out of thin air and sail around the world, even to the coasts of Siberia just to compete with a hostile government in a world fishery? And who would protect us if we were caught fishing off the coast of Soviet Siberia? I ask these questions to point out the fact that the American fisherman is a small independent businessman without the necessary resources to compete with a world power on an individual basis. He has worked zealously for all that he has been able to accumulate of this world's goods. He has lived with adverse weather, bad market conditions, heavy foreign imports, excessive taxes and various other impeding obstacles and in spite of all this, he has played a big part in the over-all economy of the coastal states.

As an illustration, California fishermen produced 34,000 tons of fresh and frozen fish during the year of 1963, almost all of which was utilized within the state. This represented almost 11 million dollars of value to the fishermen and 34 million at the consumer level. Also I would mention here that California fishermen supply only 16 per cent of the fresh and frozen fishery products used within the state. The balance is imported from out of state, Oregon and Washington supplying a very large portion.

There is no doubt in the minds of all American fishermen that the narrow continental shelf of the Pacific coast states which we have fished for so many years on a positive sustained yield basis is now being overfished to the point of extinction of all fish life by the huge Soviet fishing fleet now off our coast. It is very obvious that their intent is to catch the very last fish, if possible.

If this foreign fieet is allowed to continue to fish in the waters upon our continental shelf, where we have established every historical right of jurisdiction, and the states have established conservation laws to protect against overexploitation, then it will become necessary to throw the conservation programs of the various states out the window and turn the American fishermen loose to catch all that they can of all species as it will only be a matter of a very short time until our off-shore fishery resources are completely exhausted.

The other alternative is to establish a protective fishery zone of at least 200 miles or more so that we, the American fishermen can continue to make our living from the sea and to follow our chosen vocation.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I am fully aware that some of the other countries have not, of course, established this type of zone, but here, again, I think it is important for us to develop a record and give consideration to this now.

I would imagine that, with the State Department having supported the 12-mile zone, this is probably a more realistic zone for the moment, but then again this does not mean that we should stop here.

As you say, we have been many years evaluating legislation up to this point, and I think we should give careful consideration to this because, in addition to the military problems we are facing throughout the world, sir, we are facing major ecological problems, and certainly the economic and political factors indicate that we are at war, whether we like it or not.

Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Pelly.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment our colleague for the very fine statement.