Will you kindly hand us your name and give us your official cognomen also?

Colonel GOETHALS. George R. Goethals, Corps Engineers; Chief, Civil Works Division; Office Chief of Engineers.

Mr. ALLEN. Edward W. Allen, chairman of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission; Seattle, Wash.

Mr. BEZ. Nick Bez, Seattle, Wash.; president, Intercoastal Packing Co.

.Mr. ARNOLD. W. C. Arnold, Ketchikan, Alaska.

Mr. HALLING. Bjorne Halling, C. I. O. maritime committee; 1319 F Street, Washington, D. C.

Mr. GUNDERSON. F. J. Gunderson, Wrangell, Alaska; independent fish trap operator.

STATEMENT OF HON. MON C. WALLGREN, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Senator WALLGREN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. We have before us today to consider a bill that I have introduced called Senate 930. While the original bill differs a great deal from the bill that I have presented to you, the amendments here that have been written into the bill as you see it now are amendments that I shall ask the committee to accept as committee amendments in executive session. I am sure that many of these amendments will meet the objections of some of those people who are going to testify before the committee.

I have a prepared statement here that I wish to read to the committee because it is rather pointed and I believe will give you an accurate picture of the situation in Alaska today, and this bill is to handle the fisheries in Alaska.

The bill which we have before us today is a proposed food fisheries code for Alaska, but before discussing its provisions it may be helpful to the committee to present some of the background and necessity for such legislation.

War has brought home to the people of this country, as never before, the strategic importance of Alaska. The recognition that food is a munition of war has also made our people conscious of the enormous food resources of the sea and of their importance to our health and nutrition.

Recently the Secretary of the Interior, speaking of Alaska canned salmon, in his capacity as Coordinator of Fisheries, said:

* *

It is a valued Army, Navy, and export food *. If personnel and equipment can be secured, I do not know where more protein food suitable for use anywhere in the world can be obtained for the same expenditure of manpower and material.

Until recently most people thought of Alaska in terms of gold and icebergs. Today they know that it has large regions of mild climate, that it is a land of outstanding beauty, and that its purchase for $7,200,000 in 1867 was one of the greatest land bargains in history. It is not so well known that the fisheries for many decades have been the backbone of Alaska's economic structure. The value of their products has exceeded the combined value of all other Alaska products, including minerals, furs, lumber, and agricultural crops. More people are given employment in this industry than in all other Alaskan

enterprises combined. And this industry has consistently borne the major burden of Alaska taxation, in some years furnishing up to 80 percent of the Territorial revenues.

Paramount among the fisheries of Alaska is the salmon industry. This industry alone normally employs some 25,000 workers and annually produces from 6,000,000 to 7,000,000 cases of canned salmon. I want the committee to note these amounts. Each case consists of 48 one-pound cans, and the value of the Alaskan pack ranges from 40,000,000 to 60,000,000 dollars. With few exceptions, it is the practice of fishery operators in Alaska to give preference to resident Alaskans. The population of the Territory, however, has not been sufficient to meet the demand. Consequently many thousands of men, at the present time about half of those required, are brought in from California, Oregon, and Washington.

The State of Washington is closest to Alaska of any State. It is the natural contact point between the Territory and the continental United States. Accordingly the Senators and Representatives from my State have always felt that they owed a special duty to serve Alaska. It is because of this, together with the fact that many thousands of the fishermen and cannery workers live in my State and many of the companies operating in Alaska have their headquarters in my State, that I have taken a special interest in the matter of the Alaska fisheries. When I was in the House I had the honor to serve on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee' of that body; and for first-hand knowledge I have also made numerous trips to Alaska.

There was a time when ocean fisheries were thought to be inexhaustible, but unfortunately we have found that that is not true. Salmon and halibut are the two greatest fisheries of Alaska, and we now know that overfishing can practically destroy both of these fisheries. During and following the First World War, overfishing of salmon took place and the situation became serious. My colleague, Senator Wallace H. White of Maine, saved the day by securing in 1924 the enactment of that excellent salmon conservation measure since known as the White bill. And the halibut was preserved by means of the creation of an international commission by treaty between Canada and the United States, later implemented by Congress in the act of June 28, 1937. Many changes and developments, both inside and outside of the fishing industry, have occurred since 1924. New and more efficient methods of conservation and regulation are now desirable in order to secure the maximum fishery production together with fair and democratic treatment of the employees and employers in the industry.

Accordingly, I have for several years repeatedly consulted with representatives of the Alaska fishing unions and other unions concerned, with various operators in the industry, and with the very earnest and efficient members of the Fish and Wildlife Service of our Government.

As a result of these numerous conferences, I decided to prepare and submit to Congress a complete food fishery code for Alaska. In September 1941, in the first session of the Seventy-seventh Congress, and again in January 1942, in the second session, I introduced bills designed to accomplish this purpose. Necessarily, in the months following Pearl Harbor, all of our energies and attention were concentrated on defense and preparation for the prosecution of the war hich in December 1941. Yet from time to time in the interval

an opportunity to perfect the early proposal and in its revised form it constitutes the bill now before you for your consideration, with these new amendments.

Utilization of fisheries for food has a dual aspect. It comprehends both conservation to preserve the fisheries and effective utilization so as to secure the maximum contribution to the national larder. The great advantage of fisheries as a food resource is that once you get a fishery on a stable conservation basis, no cultivation, no use of fertilizers, and no plowing is necessary. To secure a crop every year those fishing and the regulatory authorities need exercise only proper care in avoiding destructive interference, and common sense in the harvesting of the fish crop.

There is no object in allowing more fish to escape the commercial catch than enough to assure adequate reproduction. In the past, attention has been paid to a fishery only when it had been allowed to run down by rank overfishing, and for this reason the emphasis has usually been placed on protection of the fish. Protection is, of course, paramount. But it is also important from the standpoint of the public at large that commercial production should be encouraged so that our people can get the greatest benefit of this food supply. And effective utilization must take advantage of the years of experience and study by those who have developed the Alaskan fisheries to their present high state.

Particularly in the case of salmon there is often an entirely unnecessary waste, due to overprotection. It may seem strange to some of you, but I really believe that is true. Pacific coast salmon all die after spawning. An excessive number of spawners on a ground does not bring an increased return. When a sufficient number are allowed to reach the spawning grounds, it is an annual and obvious economic loss not to permit the balance to be caught and utilized for food.

Accordingly, I have injected into the title of S. 930, and in the statement of congressional purpose in section 2, a new thought in such legislation, and I have tried to carry it throughout the provisions of the bill. This thought is to secure the greatest utilization out of our fisheries that is consistent with their perpetuation. This I believe is true and realistic conservation. I have made the title of the bill read:

A bill to assure conservation of and to permit the fullest utilization of the fisheries of Alaska, and for other purposes.

I shall not attempt to discuss every detail of the bill, but only mention the major matters. There are representatives of the fishery industry present, both employees and employers, who I am sure would be glad to answer questions, should members of the committee wish to ask them, but I do wish to run over the principal points of the bill. Section 2 presents two basic ideas.

You gentlemen may recall that in 1936 the Japanese sent a fleet of fishing vessels over to our side of Bering Sea and into the greatest red-salmon fishery of the world, our Bristol Bay district of Alaska. This created a storm of protest from our coastal labor unions, the fishery operators, and our Pacific coast people generally. Our Department of State took hold of this matter and succeeded in securing a temporary gentlemen's agreement from Japan to keep her salmon vessels out of Bristol Bay. This, however, does not settle the basic

issue involved of whether foreigners have a right to invade and exploit the coastal fisheries which we carefully protect and build up, merely because they stay 3 miles offshore.

Something more permanent and definite should be done about this matter of protecting our coastal fisheries, either by legislation or by collaboration with our allies. My primary objective in introducing this thought into this bill is that something must be done about the matter, not necessarily that it be done in the particular manner that I have suggested.

There is, I believe, no difference of opinion as to the desirability of having the act and regulations under it cover all of the fishing grounds, within or without the 3-mile limit. There may be some question as to the preferable method or methods of achieving this result. In the bill which I introduced in March of 1943 I suggested that Congress might by this very act assert that the jurisdiction of the United States would extend to the line of the Alaska Treaty purchase. Within this area, the regulations would become fully applicable to all waters less than 200 fathoms in depth, and it would be left to the President to declare any remaining portions of the area to be fishing grounds.

I understand that the committee has been advised by the Secretary of State that congressional action at this time might impede negotiations now under way, and that the problem may soon be settled by diplomatic action. This comes in the report that was filed, from the Secretary of State, with the committee, the report on this bill, having to do with the particular provision that affected the State Department, wherein they said that they were expressly engaged, themselves, in trying to work out a solution to the problem.

In the light of this I have prepared, and I should like to submit to the committee at this time, a substitute form of section 2. This provides that the act and regulations shall cover the waters of Alaska and all adjacent waters now subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It also provides that the act and the regulations may in the future be extended to all waters to which the jurisdiction of the United States for conservation of the fisheries may later be extended by valid treaty or by subsequent congressional enactment.

I am satisfied that this method of treatment will be adequate at the present time. I further believe that it would be advisable for the committee to point out just our action here, if this amendment is accepted, and to urge that they step as lively as possible in providing us with some relief from this particular angle.

In the redraft of section 2 which I have submitted to the committee, it will be observed that I have also eliminated the sentence contained

in lines 9 through 18 on page 2. In their place I have put the original language of section 1 of the White Act of June 7, 1924, as it was amended by the act of June 18, 1926 (44 Stat. 752). This language now appears in title 48 of the United States Code, section 221. It reads:

That no exclusive or several right of fishery shall be granted [in Alaskan waters], nor shall any citizen of the United States be denied the right to take, prepare, cure, or preserve fish or shellfish in any area of the waters of Alaska where fishing is permitted by the Secretary of the Interior.

This provision, which has been in our Federal fishery laws for about two decades, should be retained, since I think it is clear that the fisher

94737-44- -2

ies of Alaska are the property of the people of the Nation and of the Territory as a whole.

In order that it should be perfectly clear that the authority of the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to take any measure necessary for conservation will be paramount to anyone's rights to fish, I have added the words "subject to the provisions of this act."

Turning to other sections of the bill, the committee will note that sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 provide an effective and comprehensive system for the regulation of the fisheries, as they have developed and changed in the last 20 years, through a system of licenses, permits, and leases. These sections embody the enumeration of the regulatory powers granted to the Fish and Wildlife Service. They have been carefully worked out and I am confident that they will strengthen the hands of the Service in its essential conservation work.

The committee will note that because of the scope of regulatory authority conferred, many of the detailed provisions of the White Act and of subsequent amendments need no longer be particularized. For example, the minimum level of escapement necessary to prevent diminution of the fisheries properly is not a matter for Congress to specify, but can better be left to the experts of the Service, or the minimum distance between various types of fishing installations may reasonably be left to the Service to specify. The requirement that every vessel, boat, net, or other type of fishing apparatus be the subject of a specific permit or lease, and that every individual engaged in catching fish for commercial purpo es be specifically licensed by the Federal Government, is an important step forward in the more complete control of these fisheries.

I am going to state right here that over a period of years we have had a complex problem in handling the question of grazing laws, Communications Act, the act creating the Bureau of Aeronautics, where a special license or permit is granted to anyone. It seems to be a special privilege. But, after all, we have been stabbing around here for years in Alaska with no real legislation, and this legislation is more or less patterned after the national grazing law.

Further study since S. 930 was introduced has convinced me that section 5 might well be amplified in one or two respects. Subsection (e) authorizes the Director to prescribe by regulation reasonable terms and conditions governing the issuance, renewal, extension, suspension, cancelation, and forfeiture of permits and leases as well as the transfer of such permits or leases by contract or inheritance. It was my intention to make clear that, once granted, such permits or leases should run unless the privileges of fishing granted by them should be abused. Likewise, I had intended that transfers of any permit or lease, whether by contract or through inheritance, should be subject to the approval of the Director, who could determine whether continued operation by the transferee would be consistent with the purposes of the act.

In order that possible ambiguity may be cleared up, I am requesting the committee to insert after line 5 on page 6 the following language: Except in the case of any fixing or restriction of the number of vessels, boats, nets, or other fishing apparatus, or locations for oyster cultivation or fish traps in any fishing area, no permit or lease shall be suspended, canceled, revoked, or forfeited during its term except for abuse of the fishing privilege granted by such permit or lease. The regulations may further prescribe that every transfer of any permit or lease, either by contract or devolution of law, shall be subject to the approval of the Director as to whether continued operation under such permit or lease by the transferee will be consistent with the purposes of this act.