Mr. BONNER. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you, Mr. Bonner, and with the gentleman's permission and since the Department of the Interior representatives are here, I would like to develop, if I can, my thinking with respect to the formula that is used under the calculated apportionment of these funds, assuming that S. 627 would be enacted into law, particularly subsection 4(a), providing for $5 million annual appropriation.

It would seem to me, and it is quite obvious if anyone will take the Senate Report No. 338, on page 5, and note that while this program is designed to develop fisheries, the weight is being given to those States that have the manufacturing.

Take the State of Georgia. Its average value of raw fish per annum is just $3 million. Yet under this bill it would receive an annual $96,000.

Let us skip down to the State of Mississippi. The value of the raw fish, and that is what we are talking about, developing fisheries, is $7,000,438. Yet under this bill it would get $128,000.

Let us go down to New York. The value of the raw fish on an annual basis is from 1959 to 1961, and this is the calculated apportionment of funds, $9 million in round figures. Yet under this bill it would get $170,000.

Now, compare, gentlemen, the next figure, North Carolina, with an annual catch-that is what we are talking about, developing fishery resources, not developing manufacturing plants or processors$7,000,310. And yet we drop down to $62,500.

In other words, the State of Georgia whose annual catch is considerably less than half of North Carolina's would get some 20-someodd thousand dollars more under this bill because of what? Because the weight in this formula is given to the manufacturing.

Go back to the State of Georgia and you will see that the average value of your manufactured products 1959 to 1961 was $31,723,000; I imagine that is $31 million. And Mississippi, who has caught annually from 161,102 pounds average per year more than North Carolina, gets two and a half times the amount under this bill. Why? Because the manufacturing, annual manufacturing, is about three times.

Let's go down to Pennsylvania; that is an interesting figure. The value of their catch annually over a 3-year period, $126,000. Yet under this bill they get $59,000, $3,000 less than North Carolina, who has an annual catch of $7,438,000.

Now, if we read the language of section 3(a), you state what the purpose of the act is. It is designed for the research and development of the commercial fishery resources of the Nation.

Now, I am glad Mr. Bonner discovered this, and he and I have talked about it. It would indicate to me that what we are doing is pouring these research funds primarily into these States who have substantially less catches than the other States, but yet which had substantially larger processing and manufacturing. Now, how are these funds going to be used to develop the potential in those areas where historically we have had large catches if these funds are going primarily to the States that do the manufacturing? Now, that is what I want the Department of the Interior to think about. Perhaps you had a good reason for setting up such a formula. Maybe this is the only way it

could be done, but it is manifestly not meeting the objective of the language of the bill the Department of the Interior is supporting. If we have the resources of the State of North Carolina like I mentioned, and that is just a comparison, to develop our catch, and yet the funds for research and the development of the commercial fishery resources, according to the language of the bill are going into these States where you have little catch but substantial manufacturing.

Now, that is something we ought to think about. And when that is developed before the full committee in executive session we are going to be in trouble unless, in my judgment, the Department of the Interior can come up with another formula, another criterion that will relate the allocations of these funds to those States which have the greater potential, the ultimate potential in catch, rather than manufacturing.

Do you see what I mean, gentlemen? It is an interesting table, and it would behoove a lot of folks to read it and consider it.

I do not mean my good friend here from Pennsylvania, but if this bill is designed to increase our harvest, then that is where I would think that a fair share of these funds should go rather than to States who have no harvest but yet have substantial manufacturing of fishery products. Do I make myself clear?

Mr. RODGERS. Yes.

Mr. LENNON. Now, Mr. Downing-and I have looked at Virginia. Mr. DOWNING. That was very interesting, Mr. Chairman. I had not thought about that until just now.

In Virginia our raw value very nearly equals the take-the manufactured products. The raw fish values over those years we had $23,663,000. For the manufactured product we had $26,258,000. We would be entitled to $208,000.

I agree with the chairman. The raw fish is what we are interested in here, not the manufactured product. Maybe the Department has good reasons for this. If so, I would certainly like to hear them.

I would like to compliment this panel of gentlemen from North Carolina. You were extremely illuminating, succinct, and it has been a valuable statement from highly qualified persons.

Mr. RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Goodling?

Mr. GOODLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. BONNER. Do you have any comment on this discussion we just had, gentlemen?

Mr. RODGERS. I would like to make one comment, Mr. Bonner. You know this North Carolina figure which I am chiefly interested in, the North Carolina figure of raw fish and average value of the manufactured product, those two figures are almost the same, and that points up something I made in my statement to the effect that we are behind in processing and packaging.

Now, a great many hundreds of thousands of pounds yearly of shrimp go out of North Carolina to Georgia and other places and they come out under a Georgia trademark.

I was standing at the dock at Brunswick, Ga., several years ago; I had been sent down there by the State to make an inspection of some plants, and three large trucks rolled up and they were loaded with

several tons of shrimp. I went around to the back of the trucks to see where they were from and all of Oriental, North Carolina, but those shrimp went out under a Georgia packaging and processing

name.

A large quantity of our oysters, perhaps not as great a quantity now as there have been in the past, travel into Virginia and come back to North Carolina under Virginia trade names, and we know it. It is because we are lacking in scientific knowledge of processing and packaging, perhaps in initiative to establish such plants, perhaps due to lack of money to do it, and the State, as you know, is now making a very close study and has appointed processing experts to serve with the department of conservation and development to try to work out some plan for packaging and processing our own seafood with the aid of State funds which have been created by the North Carolina Fund and two or three other places.

Mr. BONNER. Along that line, I was down on the North Carolina coast twice this winter when they were catching all these swordfish. The catch is sent from North Carolina to Bourne, Mass., where they are processed and shipped out.

Of course, Massachusetts then gets the credit for the fish caught in North Carolina, and this bill is not designed for that purpose, but for another purpose; is that correct?

Mr. RODGERS. Yes, I think if there is to be a weight in the formula one way or the other, I think that weight should be for the catch, not the processing because, after all, we are interested in improving and increasing the catch and we have already seen the terrific impact that fish sticks coming from a type of fish that many years we did not eat at all, come into the Union now in huge chunks cut up into 17-pound lots, I believe, and then they are put into these little slabs of about half a pound apiece and the average housewife doesn't care too much for cleaning fish, and that is a terrific impact on the edible fish as we know edible fish in North Carolina. And we want to overcome some of those things by scientific investigation, proper packaging, and processing.

Mr. BONNER. So you have no observation to make about this?
Mr. RODGERS. No.

Mr. BONNER. There is another question, if I may ask, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. LENNON. Fine.

Mr. BONNER. I want to call to your attention the testimony of Mr. McKernan, yesterday, on the hearings, page 67, with respect to this botulism.

Mr. McKernan, in answer to Mr. Van Pelt:

All of the instances of botulism poison that we are aware of have been caused by very serious improper handling of fish. To our knowledge, botulism in fishery products has never occurred where the fish has had any reasonable care in its handling.

Now, what provision is made in your State with respect to inspection of the take for health purposes and what would you recommend as a national program to protect against this? This botulism is a dangerous thing. If it happened in that place it can happen in many others where raw fish are being marketed and no inspection made of

them.

Mr. RODGERS. I think in North Carolina fate has been very kind to us.

Mr. BONNER. It is not a question of fate, it is a question of what can happen. It happened here.

Mr. RODGERS. It just has not happened in North Carolina, fortunately, is what I mean. In oysters the State Board of Health has absolute control over our oyster catch with respect to pollution, but beyond pollution there are certain standards for the oyster houses, the shucking houses, and the packaging of oysters that have to be carried out in accordance with the terms laid down by the State Board of Health. But when it comes to fish and shrimp, I think, gentlemen, we do not have any very tight regulations. We take them and we generally

Mr. BONNER. Is that true of the other States?

Mr. RODGERS. I cannot speak for the other States, Mr. BonnerMr. BONNER. Dr. Chestnut, do you know anything about this? Dr. CHESTNUT. I believe this is true in most States. Many, of course, manufacturers and processors adopt voluntary standards. This has been the sort of thing that I think the National Fisheries Institute has promulgated-and Fish and Wildlife Service, too, I think have done a lot along that line, and adoption of controls and standards. Mr. RODGERS. I agree it is voluntary mostly. Outside of the oysters we just do not have any proper regulations to prevent botulism or other pollution of that nature.

Mr. BONNER. Thank you.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Goodling.

Mr. GOODLING. Your fishing industry according to this table amounts to a take of $15 million a year.

And you say, I believe, that your State legislature appropriates from $10,000 to $15,000 a year for research. Do you consider that a sufficient appropriation by the State?

Mr. RODGERS. I do not think it is in comparison with other types of appropriations, but I would like to add that in addition to the average of $10,000 to $15,000-$20,000 a year that is appropriated for research there is appropriated through the University of North Carolina the sum of $100,000 to $125,000 a year for Dr. Chestnut's institute, which is devoted to commercial fishery research, and he has a staff of scientists who are working on projects all the time.

We have constantly been asking for increased appropriations and I have been serving on this committee, except for 4 years, since 1946. It has been an uphill fight but we are getting a much more favorable response at this time. I think it ought to be increased. I think it would be to the advantage of the economic status of the State to so increase it.

Mr. GOODLING. I would like to ask the doctor, do you have facilities to expand your research?

Dr. CHESTNUT. Yes, sir. The university has in its capital improvements program a provision for a new building. This is forthcoming, I hope.

Mr. GOODLING. I am always interested in using existing facilities rather than haying new facilities.

Dr. CHESTNUT. We are occupying and have been occupying since 1947 a portion of an old Marine base. Of course, it was built for temporary war use, and it has outlived its usefulness to the State.

Mr. GOODLING. Is your research being implemented? So often I find research in my State in other fields collects dust after the results are determined.

Dr. CHESTNUT. Many of our projects are specific requests from the department of conservation and development for studies on specific problems with recommendations to be forthcoming.

Mr. GOODLING. And they do follow your recommendations then? Dr. CHESTNUT. Yes, they do. Sometimes, of course, the biological aspects become a very minor part of an overall picture, the social, economic factors may well override the biological implications so that they may not have to go along with the biological recommendations. Mr. GOODLING. The point I am trying to make is that I object to doing research and then not having that research used. If we are going to spend the money for research, I think we should use the results.

Dr. CHESTNUT. I think there is a general trend toward this area in many of the coastal laboratories, to get these results out to where they will be used.

Mr. GOODLING. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BONNER. I wanted to ask one more question referring to Mr. McKernan's statement yesterday. I do not know whether you gentlemen have a copy of it here. I want to ask Mr. Rodgers.

On the bottom of page 2, and I quote him:

It is our belief that the States share of the cost of any project approved under this bill and financed by the funds provided in section 4(a) should come not from existing State Commercial Fishery funds but from new moneys.

Now, therefore, I take it that he would not approve of your using any moneys that might go to your department to be used in any project that you are carrying on at the present time unless it was new money and where would you get the new money from?

Mr. RODGERS. I would say, Mr. Bonner, from your own experience with the State legislature of North Carolina, you know when funds are appropriated for commercial fishing it is appropriated by subjects.

Mr. BONNER. You know he means you could not divert any moneys asked that your present program be changed from the moneys you are getting now, but they would have to be new moneys. What is your comment on that, sir?

Dr. CHESTNUT. I believe in an instance like this that the department of conservation and development would request a specific appropriation be made to them which would match in the proportionate share that would be needed to match these funds. I think that is the way it would be handled.

Mr. LENNON. As a matter of fact, that would have to be done by qualifying as a new project, new program.

Gentlemen, we are grateful to you for your appearance and we hope you will stay around for a few days. We would like to see more of you. It is now 12 noon but we have a gentleman that I understand expects to be heard this morning and we will try to hear you, sir.