Mr. STAEBLER. Yes, the trouble has now been diagnosed. The eradication of the eel is now underway. It will only be a matter of time before the eel is eliminated. The eradication takes place, if you are interested in the detail, by electrical means. They tried chemical for a long time and found that it was not satisfactory but now it is being done by electrical means and the eels are shocked in an appropriate way which discourages the spawning and we are hopeful that in a matter of a few years the eel will practically disappear.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Have the eels penetrated into other areas; for example, Lake Superior? Have they gotten into Lake Superior at all? Mr. STAEBLER. I thought the whole Great Lakes had been affected. Mr. TOLLEFSON. I can recall when we had legislation before us authorizing the expenditure of funds for research on the lamprey eel. At that time the testimony was that the lamprey eel had not gotten into Lake Superior to any extent. I wonder if they had gotten in any more?

Mr. STAEBLER. I believe it did before we finally turned the tide. Lake Superior had been a major source of whitefish and it remained the final best source, but even it was severely cut down. But the cure has been equally dramatic, and your work here is bound to pay off in a period of time.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. STAEBLER. Thank you very much.

Mr. THOMPSON. We will be happy to have you sit with us during the rest of the hearing, Congressman, if you would like to, although I know you have a busy schedule.

Mr. STAEBLER. You are very kind and I am afraid I cannot avail myself of that. Thank you very much for the opportunity to join with you.

Mr. THOMPSON. It was a privilege for the committee to have you, sir.

I notice we have the gentleman from California with us. Would you care to make a statement, Mr. Clausen?

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

Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes, I would Mr. Chairman. Many witnesses before this committee have rightly mentioned the fall of the United States from its place of leadership in the world fishing industry. I would call to your attention the actual point of impact-the commercial fishermen whose catch of tuna, sardines, crab, and salmon has fallen off.

I would add my support to the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act of 1963 not only for the help it would give the troubled commercial fishing industry and, indirectly, the thousands of sportsmen in California who like to drop a salmon spinner or a cluster of salmon eggs into the north coast rivers of my district.

I also would look to the perspective of the horizon and ask: Should we not spend a few million to know the intricacies and possibilities of our own earth at a time when we are spending billions in a race to the moon?

Can we be complacent with a temporary food surplus in the United States when the world population can double in a few years and the ocean food supply remains largely unknown and unplumbed?

While we look to the stars-and get our faces rained on-Soviet Russia has been building tremendous trawler and submarine fleets. Have we been racing toward space in competition with our own shadow while forgetting the importance of developing our own world resources?

Has Russia been solving the riddle of long-range supply and demand, and perhaps ultimate world domination, while we are entertained with visions of an astronaut sifting moondust?

These are just a few thoughts that occur to me in a long view. To me, the short-range problems and the necessity to solve them also are compelling.

One of the solutions is the expansion of Federal oceanographic research. I have worked to help the Department of the Interior realize its aim of establishing an Oceanographic Research Center at Tiburon, Calif. The U.S. Navy recently declared the Tiburon Naval Net Depot to be in excess of defense needs and, hopefully, that facility will be signed over to Interior in the near future.

Another solution is the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act of 1963. It is necessary because commercial fisheries are a federal problem for the simple reason that the oceans, and the flora and fauna therein, cannot be bound by political boundaries on the adjacent lands.

Further, the salmon fishery problem as it affects my district is the direct result of Federal-State conservation and flood control projects. California fish and game officials inform me that up to three-quarters of the salmon and steelhead spawning grounds in California have been blocked by dams. The salmon and steelhead runs have been cut the same percentage.

The Department of Interior has granted leases to oil companies for oil exploration in the continental shelf adjacent to my district. The oil company involved has conducted seismic exploration, and fishermen in my district claim that these underwater blasts are ruining the famous Humboldt crab fishery. Research is needed to determine the effect of underwater explosions on crab eggs, embryo crabs and the hatching of all species of sole and cod eggs.

The California Department of Fish and Game informs me that it is prepared to start immediately on a full-scale survey of fishery resources along the California coast. It is important that a fish census be made, that the causes of fish poulation fluctuation be determined and the best methods of harvesting be determined.

The State fish and game people also have plans to establish a shellfish laboratory to work on the problems of raising shellfish to commercial size.

The crux of my comments, Mr. Chairman, is that commercial fishermen are in troubled times. It is the duty of the Federal Government to help them to help themselves and it is in the public interest of the United States to find out what our own world has to offer in the way of resources.

Mr. THOMPSON. We thank you for a fine statement, Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you for allowing me to appear before this distinguished committee.

Mr. THOMPSON. Is Mr. Ernest Mitts present?

(No response.)

The Chair announced a while ago several names of people who were not here to testify on S. 627.

I have some statements here that we will include in the record at this point.

The statements are as follows: A joint statement of Congressmen S. R. Tupper and C. G. McIntire of Maine; a statement of Representative Victor A. Knox, of Michigan; a statement of Gov. William A. Egan of Alaska, a statement of Ronald W. Green, Commissioner, Maine Department of Sea and Shore Fisheries; a supplemental statement of Mr. Green's; a statement of Charles H. W. Foster, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, plus several others.

The subcommittee has received many other documents on this vital subject and if there is no objection, they will appear after the statements I have just mentioned.

Mr. THOMPSON. This concludes the testimony on S. 627. (The material mentioned follows:)

A JOINT STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMEN S. R. TUPPER AND C. G. McINTIRE FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Inasmuch as spokesmen for Maine's Department of Sea and Shore Fisheries will offer comprehensive statements in support of S. 627, we will confine our remarks to a few general observations.

Although man has depended upon the sea for food since the beginning of time, we know less about the sea and the life contained therein than we know about outer space.

It is a matter of grave concern that the United States, which, in 1958, was the second largest in the fishery field, now finds itself in fifth place. Government has failed to provide the assistance which the industry needs to compete with countries which are providing assistance and which are now crowding us from nearly every direction.

It is unnecessary to remind this committee that the growth and prosperity of our country is the result of free enterprise, assisted by the combined efforts of State and Federal Governments. The concept of joint State-Federal projects is as old as government itself in this country. To list a few, State and Federal projects provide assistance in the fields of national defense, civil defense, highway construction, agriculture, forestry, health, education, and welfare. We also have State and Federal programs in the sport fishery and wildlife fields and in the many fields of recreation. No such programs are available to the commercial fishing interests of the United States. There are several pieces of legislation now before this Congress designed to provide some assistance. S. 627 will not resolve all fishery problems nor will it provide all the information to investigate, promote, and conserve our fishery resource; but it will provide Federal and State research programs, it will upgrade the work presently being done by the States, and it will fill the gap which now exists because of policy and because of the lack of sufficient funds.

STATEMENT OF HON. VICTOR A. KNOX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife Conservation, during the hearings currently being conducted you will hear a great deal of testimony about the sorry state of the U.S. fishing industry. Although I am fully aware of the problems of our coastal fisheries and the competition they have faced, particularly from the mushrooming Soviet fleet, I shall largely confine my remarks to the Great Lakes fishing industry.

Naturally, many of the problems the Great Lakes fisheries face are shared by the other segments of our national fishing industry. In this category I would place the problem of the rising tide of imported fish and fish products to the

30-812-64--14

U.S. markets. A few figures might be illustrative of the direction and strength with which this tide is running. During the thirties U.S. fish and shellfish catches reached about 5 billion pounds annually. Despite great population increases and corresponding increases in consumption of fish in this country, our fisheries still produce only about 5 billion pounds per year. However, during this period of domestic standstill, foreign production has more than doubled and imports to the U.S. market have skyrocketed. In 1940 U.S. fish imports totaled about one-half billion pounds worth $40 million. This had ballooned to over 1 billion pounds worth $200 million by 1950, and to 42 billion pounds worth $475 million by 1962. Since 1958 the value of foreign imports has exceeded the value of domestic production; in 1962 the scales were tipped to the extent of $475 million of imports as against only $380 million for U.S. domestic production. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, has now reached the point where between 80 and 90 percent of her production is exported to this country. As I said, this is a problem of common concern to both our salt- and fresh-water fishing industries. The causes of the problem are many and varied, but largely revolve around the fact that our labor costs are higher and our fleets obsolete, and this, coupled with the extent of Government subsidy available to foreign competitors has combined to virtually price us out of our own and world markets.

The Great Lakes fishing industry continues to face some problems which are somewhat unique and have been caused or aggravated by Federal action or inaction at critical points. I refer, of course, to the decimation since about the time of World War II of the prime commercial species by the invasion of lamprey eels and the more recent botulism scare which almost completely shut down the Great Lakes fishing industry. I should like to deal briefly with each of these. One really has to have lived in the Great Lakes area to fully realize the depredations the sea lamprey made on the fishing industry there. This parasite entered the Great Lakes through the Welland canal shortly before and during World War II. Because of the exigencies of wartime, no effort was made by the Federal Government to halt this menace. As a result, beginning in the midforties the lamprey spread to all our Great Lakes and came very close to completely wiping out our high value fresh-water species. Particularly hard hit were the whitefish and lake trout which formed the backbone of the Great Lakes fisheries. Although the lamprey has now been brought under control, it will be many more years before the high value species are restored to anything even approaching their former value and quantity. Thus Great Lakes fishermen suffered great losses and have had to shift to low value species for the bulk of their catch. However, they have had inadequate resources to either modernize their equipment or conduct vital research into new methods of marketing and processing to develop products for human consumption from different species. As a result, a large portion of the Great Lakes catch now goes into animal food at very low return to the fishermen. Many fishermen have "gone under" and less than half as many operators are now in business as before the lamprey invasion. As recently as last fall the slow but promising comeback of the Great Lakes fisheries was sidetracked by the botulism scare. Naturally, I was gravely concerned over the tragic deaths of several persons in October as a result of type E botulism virus contained in smoked fish which they ate and which originated in the Great Lakes area. However, the adverse impact on Great Lakes fishermen of this tragic occurrence was needlessly compounded by a press release from the Food and Drug Administration on October 25, 1963. Despite the example of the cranberry incident in 1959, the FDA once again put out a scare technique release which created an apprehension in the public mind that all types of Great Lakes fish, no matter how processed, were suspect. The results of failure to connect the FDA release to the precise problem were immediate and disastrous to Great Lakes fishermen. The industry came literally to a halt. At one point more than 20,000 men were out of work and it is only in the last few weeks that production has picked up at all.

Some effort has been made to relieve the plight of the Great Lakes fishermen. Amendments to the Small Business Act passed in January will offer disaster loans to those affected, but this will be on a very limited scale, and most Great Lakes fishermen still do not qualify. I should make it very clear that the fishermen in my area, at least, are not looking for handouts. This was forcefully stated by the Michigan Fish Producers Association through its executive secretary, Roy Jensen of Escanaba, Mich. What is needed is a comprehensive program of State fisheries research and rehabilitation, aided by Federal matching funds. There have been a number of suggested methods of carrying this out. one of which is embodied in the bills before you today. Another is found in the

bill I introduced last March, H.R. 4448. I should like to comment briefly on these bills and improvements I feel could be made in them.

The goals sought by S. 627, H.R. 5539, H.R. 3738 and companion bills, and H.R. 4448 are similar and highly commendable. I would prefer to tie the financing of the measures to a permanent fund based on a percentage of the customs duties collected on imported fish, fish products, etc., because such financing would be more directly tied to the problems of our domestic producers in facing foreign competition in our markets. Regardless of the source of the funds, however, I feel the apportionment of them should be made first to those States with a significant preexisting fishing industry. I am certain it will be more economical, equitable, and meaningful to rehabilitate our present industry than to try to develop substantial fisheries in areas where none has previously existed. I am in accord with the idea of a special emergency fund embodied in S. 627, provided adequate legislative guidelines could be incorporated in it to assure that the Secretary will utilize these funds in true hardship areas. In any event, I do not feel grants should be made to States which are without a significant prior interest in fishing industries until such time as we have made substantial headway in rehabilitating our present fishing industry.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I feel the need for a comprehensive and continuing program of aid to State fisheries research and rehabilitation is patent and urgent. We have on our hands a sick, indeed some call it a dying, industry. Yet, as I pointed out earlier, these fishermen seek no handouts or personal subsidy. What they seek and desperately need is technological and marketing know-how. We have for too long slighted and even ignored our domestic fishing industry. While there is still time, I hope we will take steps to save it.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. EGAN, GOVERNOR, STATE OF ALASKA This statement is to record the support of the State of Alaska for the provisions of S. 627. This legislation is designed to promote commercial fishery research and development projects by the several States. Its objectives are excellent and there is no denying the intense need for such a program on an accelerated basis.

I strongly believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to assist the States in this endeavor. This is particularly true in Alaska where, as you know, commercial fisheries were under the complete control of the Federal Government prior to January 1, 1960.

Upon assuming control, the State was faced with rehabilitating a salmon resource that had declined from an all-time high pack of 8,437,000 case in 1936 to an alltime low pack of 1,778,000 cases in 1959. The annual average pack between 1922 and 1946 was 5.5 million cases. For the 5 years imediately prior to the State taking over control, the annual pack averages 2.5 million cases.

Alaska has pursued a program of research and development of its commercial fisheries to the limit of its financial capability. Alaska's commercial fishermen, working with the State, have demonstrated their willingness to "tighten up their belts" to insure that salmon are permitted to escape the commercial fisheries and ascend the streams for spawning. The fishermen and the State place their trust and faith in a program designed for the rehabilitation of the salmon runs to their former high level of abundance. Research and development funds are necessary to accomplish this, and this work is expensive.

We need to know more about the optimum numbers of salmon spawners required in each area. Too large or too little a salmon escapement on the spawning grounds can be harmful. If we could insure an adequate number of spawners for optimum egg deposition, egg incubation, fry emergence and survival and rearing, we would be utilizing our salmon habitat to its maximum. All fish in excess of the requirements for spawning could be harvested.

There is need for more fundamental biological information on our five species of eastern North Pacific salmon. A definition of the races of salmon in each species and a development of management methods to be used for each is of the utmost importance. Considerable research effort could well be invested in methods of supplementing natural production of salmon.

Under statehood, Alaska has reversed the downward trend in salmon production. The salmon pack has increased to a 1962 level of 3,510,000 cases. This increase was not made at the sacrifice of adequate escapements for spawning purposes. When this is compared to the low pack of 1,778,000 cases in 1959, I believe