Mr. DINGELL. The Chair notes the presence of our colleague, the Honorable Brock Adams, author of an identical piece of legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. BROCK ADAMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to appear before you on the subject relating to the importance of adequate facilities for the Halibut Commission.

The importance of this facility to the United States and in particular to the Pacific Northwest lies in the area of fulfilling our commitment with the other involved nations relative to the conservation of the fish resources of the North Pacific.

As one who has fished in the Alaskan waters for 5 years, I want to emphasize that we face a very difficult problem in conserving our fish resources including salmon, halibut, and our new product-king crab. In my opinion, the best way to do this is through international conservation treaties involving those nations using the North Pacific as a fishing resource. We must look to the time when we will have an overall North Pacific Conservation Treaty binding at least four major nations: Russia, Japan, Canada, and the United States.

We are presently involved in a series of negotiations with the Japanese regarding our salmon resources and we have just concluded a series of negotiations with Japan and Russia regarding king crab.

We are facing changes in our relationships with Canada, Japan, and Russia regarding our halibut resources since the demands of each nation for these resources are expanding.

We must also face the fact that in future years we will be required to agree with these nations on the regulation of numerous other fish resources such as hake. For the information of those members of the committee who are unfamiliar with this fish, it is a light skinned, rather bony fish which exists in huge numbers off the coast of Washington State. It can be used in certain commercial ventures and recently the Russians have indicated an interest in having this resource. Only now our own fishing industry is beginning to recognize its commercial value.

I mention these things so that committee will be aware of the great importance of providing adequate facilities for the International Halibut Commission within the United States. We must demonstrate to the other nations of the North Pacific that we are willing to bear our fair share of the expense involved in establishing adequate international conservation practices regarding our fishing resources in the North Pacific.

Halibut is one of our important fishing resources and recently has been one of the most controversial. The methods of taking halibut and the means of its conservation are in sharp dispute between ourselves and Japan.

Halibut, as you are aware, is a flat, bottom fish which Americans have abundantly taken with a multiple-hook operation. The Japanese have used other methods, including a general sweep of an area for all types of bottom fish. In the opinion of the American fishing industry, this has completely destroyed halibut resources in certain

regions of the North Pacific, whereas the Japanese have maintained this has not occurred. I cite this as an example of some of the problems that must be answered by the International Halibut Commission. Other witnesses will describe the location of buildings and the inadequacy of the present facilities. It is my understanding that the statement of Mr. Lokken regarding the details of location of the facilities at the University of Washington has already been introduced, or will be, by Congressman Pelly, my colleague from the First District of the State of Washington. I join in support of Mr. Lokken's

statement.

My comment would be directed in the area that Mr. Herrington will talk about. We are presently starting a series of negotiations again with a number of nations in the North Pacific on our total overall conservation problem. Halibut will be one of those that will be in considerable controversy because of certain practices that have occurred in the past. We are also facing the fact that we and the other three major fishing nations of the North Pacific will undoubtedly have to arrive at an overall conservation agreement within the next few I think we should demonstrate our desire to cooperate and help by the building of these facilities so the other nations will know we do have a desire to solve the overall conservation problem.

years.

Mr. Chairman, for the reasons outlined I hope that your committee will act favorably on H.R. 9734, H.R. 9801, and H.R. 10174. I would like to thank you and the members of your committee for the courtesies shown me today.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair notes the presence of Mr. William Herrington, Special Assistant for Fisheries and Wildlife to the Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.

The Chair is happy to welcome you for whatever comments you wish to make on this legislation.

I notice you are accompanied by some other gentlemen from the State Department. It will be appropriate if you desire to speak from where you are sitting.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HERRINGTON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE TO THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. HERRINGTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Department of State has submitted a report on this bill. I would like to elaborate very briefly on the report submitted by the Department.

Congressman Pelly has given you a bit of the background of this Halibut Commission. I would like to add that this is the first, or was the first, of our international fishing conventions, and it is one of the most successful.

The work of this Commission has been effective in bringing to a halt the decline of the halibut stocks of the northeast Pacific, and restoring these stocks to a sustainable yield of about 70 million pounds annually. This is the only stabilized halibut fishery in the world. In

other areas, the halibut stocks have been overfished, have been reduced, and continue to produce at greatly reduced levels.

The U.S. fishermen take about one-half of the total yield. It is worth about $7 million annually to these fishermen. It is the primary support of about 250 vessels, and about 1,500 U.S. fishermen.

The Halibut Commission has been accommodated in facilities of the University of Washington from its earliest days. As a result of a new building program of the University of Washington, the quarters that it occupied will be razed, I believe, next year, and the Commission must find new quarters. We understand they are not available in the future facilities of the University of Washington, or the facilities of the Fish and Wildlife Service in the area, and we have found no other Government facilities in the area that could accommodate the Commission.

The Department considers there are three primary things that favor the action by the Congress in providing quarters for the Commission. First of all, having the Commission located in the Northwest is advantageous to the U.S. halibut industry. The Commission has a wealth of information on the halibut resources. Its location in Seattle where our chief halibut fleet is headquartered makes these facilities available to our industry, and facilities contacts and consultation between our industry people and the staff of the Commission.

We consider that it is advantageous to the United States to have the Halibut Commission located on or near the grounds of the University of Washington. This is the center of fishery research and training, one of the foremost centers in the United States.

Having near at hand the staff of the Commission, the working records of the Commission, is advantageous to the training of scientists and others in the field of fisheries, and it is helpful in giving background to the research work and the additional work on conservation of fisheries.

The third reason is that this is involved in reciprocal action with Canada. There are five international fishery commissions to which the United States and Canada are parties which are headquarters in the United States or in Canada. Three of these are headquartered in Canada. The International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission is headquartered in New Westminster, British Columbia. This Commission is provided with headquarters space at no cost.

Also, the Canadian Government constructed a field laboratory primarily for the work of the Salmon Commission.

A second commission, the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, to which the United States, Canada, and Japan are party, are provided with rent-free headquarters in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Third, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Commission, to which the United States, Canada, and a number of European countries are party, is provided with headquarters at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. The only charge is a nominal charge to cover utilities and maintenance.

One commission, the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, is provided with quarters in Ann Arbor, Mich., in the laboratory of the

Fish and Wildlife Service of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in that area, at a nominal charge.

The Halibut Commission is the fifth commission and the one we are concerned with here.

In order to some extent carry our share of the contributions to the activities of our joint commissions, the Department of State thinks it is desirable we should provide quarters for the Halibut Commission in the area in which it is now located.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you very much. ful.

Your statement is most help

Unless there are other persons who desire to be heard, that will terminate the hearings on this matter. The committee will now go into executive session to consider these matters.

(Whereupon, the committee proceeded to executive session.)

MISCELLANEOUS FISHERIES LEGISLATION

MIGRATORY WATERFOWL REGULATIONS

THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 1966

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas N. Downing presiding.

Mr. DOWNING. The Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation will come to order.

This morning the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation will begin hearings on the subject of wildlife conservation as it would relate to migratory waterfowl regulations.

As I am sure all of you are aware, this is the time of the year when season and bag limits for the coming hunting season are about to be determined.

Last week the flyway councils met to formulate recommendations and it was just yesterday that the Waterfowl Advisory Committee concluded its meeting with the Department of the Interior. On Wednesday of next week, August 17, the Secretary of the Interior will make a final determination of the regulations for the forthcoming season. The Chair is most hopeful that the testimony to be received at this hearing will be given serious consideration by the Secretary and his staff before a final determination is actually made.

The Chair would like to point out that over the years there has been considerable controversy among the States, wildlife organizations, and sportsmen over the administration of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, which has primarily been centered around season and bag limits.

Although this subcommittee has the function of overseeing the administration of this act, in its supervisory capacity, it also has as its goal both the satisfaction of the sportsmen and the preservation of wildlife. Because of last year's restrictive regulations and because of improved nesting conditions, present wild duck populations show a significant increase over the low period of 1965.

The Chair hastens to point out that this information is most encouraging but would like to stress that any tendency to increase bag