The proposed legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to design and construct two large modern stern-ramp fishing trawlers to conduct research concerning the harvesting, processing, and preserving of fish, improvement in fishing vessel design and operation, and effective utilization of fisheries resources. The Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to either operate the vessels or charter them to U.S. citizens. Any disposition of fishing products resulting from the vessels' operations would be required to be made with due regard to the impact on the domestic fishing industry. Any revenues received from operation of these vessels would be covered into the Treasury. The Department has no information as to the necessity for the proposed research vessels and is not in a position to comment on the general merits of the proposed legislation. However, the Department has an interest in the safety features of the vessels and the following comments are made with respect to that aspect of the matter.

As public vessels, these ships would ordinarily be exempt from the laws concerning inspection of vessels found in title 52 of the Revised Statutes (title 46, United States Code). These laws, which are administered by the U.S. Coast Guard under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, are designed to assure a high standard of safety for American merchant vessels.

In recent years, the Coast Guard has been increasingly concerned with the standards of safety of fishing vessels and their adverse safety record. Similarly, there has been a general international recognition of a need for higher safety on such vessels. This need was recently emphasized by the serious consideration given by other countries to the safety of fishing vessels at the 1960 Safety of Life at Sea Conference in London. However, under existing law fishing vessels are exempted from compliance with the marine inspection laws administered by the Coast Guard, as well as most of the laws concerning manning of vessels and qualifications of seamen.

While the proposed vessels would thus be exempt from the marine inspection laws both as public vessels and as fishing vessels, this Department believes it highly desirable that they comply with such laws to the greatest extent possible. This would insure maximum safety for the vessels and their crews. Additionally, it would point up the Federal Government's concern with safety at sea and serve as an example to private operators. It would be anomalous for the Government to construct two modern research vessels without insuring that they meet the minimum standards of safety which apply to private merchant vessels.

For the above reasons, the Department suggests that the proposed legislation by amended to make the vessels subject to the provisions of the marine safety laws concerning the inspection and certification of vessels.

The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration's program to the submission of this report to your committee.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for views of this Department with respect to S. 978, a bill to provide medical care for certain persons engaged on board a vessel in the care, preservation, or navigation of such vessel.

Section 322(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 249(a)(1)) authorizes that Service to provide medical, surgical, and dental treatment and hospitalization without charge at hospitals and other stations of the Service to seamen employed on vessels of the United States registered, enrolled, and licensed under the maritime laws thereof, other than canal boats engaged in the coasting trade. Section 2(h) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201(h)) presently defines the term "seamen" as including any person employed on board in the care, preservation, or navigation of any vessel, or in the service, on board, of those engaged in such care, preservation, or navigation.

S. 978 would extend that authority to persons self-employed on board such vessels in the care, preservation, or navigation of the vessel.

We understand that the purpose of the bill is to restore to owner-operators of small vessels the right to public health services which they enjoyed prior to an administrative ruling of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1954 which interpreted the statute as not authorizing such services for such owner-operators. We look with favor on this purpose.

The language of S. 978 is the same as the language of S. 367, 87th Congress, as introduced in the Senate, with the amendment recommended by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to eliminate from the bill the coverage of passengers, guests, or others aboard the vessel who are not regular members of the crew but who may preform some useful service related to the care, preservation, or navigation of the vessel. We recommend favorable consideration of the bill.

We have also received a copy of the report of the Bureau of the Budget to your committee on this legislation and are studying the recommendations made therein.

The Bureau of the Budget advised there would be no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Sincerely,

ROBERT E. GILES.

Senator BARTLETT. Now it is proposed to have testimony initially on S. 627. However, since many of the witnesses have come from many different sections of the country, and since these bills are related in one way or another, the committee will entertain testimony on any combination of the bills or all of them from any witness appearing. We will have to conclude these hearings by tomorrow. Several Senators interested in this legislation are on the witness list, and we will hear them when they arrive.

The first witness this morning will be Donald L. McKernan, Director of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior.

STATEMENT OF DONALD L. McKERNAN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY H. E. CROWTHER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AND RALPH CURTISS, LEGISLATIVE SPECIALIST

Mr. McKERNAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With your permission I would like to ask Mr. H. E. Crowther, Assistant Director of the Bureau, and Mr. Ralph Curtiss, our legislative specialist, to accompany me to the stand, because I expect perhaps some questions which they might be able to elucidate to a greater extent than myself.

Senator BARTLETT. Agreed.

Mr. McKERNAN. Mr. Chairman, I feel that in speaking to you about this particular bill is not nearly so appropriate really as having you speak to me. I know of your great interest in this matter and the general leadership that you have provided in seeing that this bill is before Congress at the present time.

Nevertheless, I would like to briefly read a short statement and remind the committee that they have the departmental report of April 22, which recommends favorable enactment-recommends enactment of S. 627, with some minor amendments. The amendments, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, are of a minor nature. They are wording and slight clarification, and are not substantive in themselves.

The bill before you today is designed to promote commerical fishery research and development projects within individual States which will fill gaps in our knowledge of the Nation's fisheries. It will provide a fund of information upon which the individual States and the Federal Government can base their formulation of policy to govern the proper exploitation of the fishery resources within their respective jurisdiction.

And I am sure again, Mr. Chairman, I do not need to remind you of the importance of learning more about the resources of our land, of making sure not only the research and Federal policy with respect to our fishery resources is well in hand and is well coordinated. But since the States have jurisdiction over the management of their fisheries, it is absolutely essential that the States have adequate conservation programs on all species of commercial importance, so that in the coming days, months, and years, ahead, these important international problems can be handled with dispatch and effectively and efficiently within our own Government.

A description of the provisions of the bill 627 is made in the Department's report, and I don't intend to repeat that here; except to say the five amendments, as I mentioned before, do not alter the principal provisions. They are in the nature of perfecting amendments.

Except in a few cases, the management and control of the Nation's fishery resources lies with the individual States. Each State government promulgates its own legislation in this field and appropriates funds for the work. The result is a wide variation in the conservation effort from State to State with even greater variations in the effectiveness of the management achieved by them. Undoubtedly there are many justifiable reasons for this variation of effort in carrying out the activities necessary for a sound program of aquatic resource conservation, but basically such reasons are no different than those upon which is based the Federal aid to the States in such fields as highway construction, water pollution control, public education, and public assistance.

Beginning with the 86th Congress, attempts have been made to secure the passage of various types of legislation which would aid State commercial fishery programs. Some of these would have required allocation of the funds available under the existing Saltonstall-Kennedy Act. These funds, however, have already been committed to programs administered for the most part by the Federal Government, only a part of which are contracted to the fishery agencies of the States, or universities or private institutions.

We believe the States will show in these hearings a need now for fishery assistance comparable to the assistance rendered to them in the other fields I have mentioned. The most direct way of doing this is through an addition to the Federal budget. The amount we believe is required and specified by S. 627 ($5 million) would seem small indeed in relation to the benefits which will result from this work.

Detailed studies have been made by State fishery agencies and reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of this Department which show the inadequacy of their present fishery programs. As stated in our departmental report on this bill, in the field of research, knowledge is available for only a few of the most important commercial fishes. Even in the knowledge of these important commercial fishes, certain gaps exist. No knowledge at all is available about the

remaining fishes now caught commercially, and practically none about the many fishes of potential value which are not now presently exploited. Many competent scientists feel perhaps the current catch from fishing grounds might be doubled if knowledge about these species was available.

A very large number of our States, particularly along the seacoasts and the Great Lakes, have well-established fishery organizations which would be capable of expansion if funds were made available. Indeed, many of the State fishery laboratories have in their files fully formulated research plans which need only funding to be put into action.

The increase in State fishery activity which would result from S. 627, together with the continuing efforts of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries of this Department and the universities, could not help but lead to improvement in the situation which now exists. It is only by accumulation of a fund of information on life histories, vital statistics, effects of catch, effects of enviornment, et cetera, that the States can be expected to intelligently formulate the regulations for full and effective utilization of their commercial fishery resources. Continuing progress in the production of knowledge should bring us closer to the ultimate objective, which is the management and use of these fishery resources in a way that will provide maximum benefits for the people of the States.

In addition to these direct benefits, there would be important side effects on our international fishery negotiations. Most of our international treaties require a basis of scientific facts to support positive actions favorable to U.S. fisheries and our general national interest. Unfortunately, for many States this basis has been lacking. The deficiency needs to be filled soon in the light of rapidly changing world fishery conditions and the loss of U.S. leadership in the fisheries. I will be glad to respond to any questions the committee may have on this bill.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. McKernan.

I will say that when the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Prouty, a valued member of the committee, entered the hearing room I almost fainted because I just consulted the table and noted that Vermont is not here at all.

Senator PROUTY. I also noticed that, Mr. Chairman, and I believe four other States also.

Senator BARTLETT. But upon reflection it occurred to me this will make him particularly objective in listening to the testimony and asking questions.

At this time, Senator Prouty, would you care to direct any questions to Mr. McKernan?

Senator PROUTY. Obviously, my first question is what has happened to Vermont, and I believe, four other States, if I counted the list correctly?

Senator BARTLETT. Did you hear Senator Prouty's question?
Mr. McKERNAN. I'm sorry. I apologize.

Senator PROUTY. Under the provisions of the bill I understand that each State would be allocated a maximum of 10 percent, and less than one-half of 1 percent. Is that correct?

Mr. McKERNAN. That is correct.

Senator PROUTY. Each of the 50 States?

98003-63-2

Mr. McKERNAN. Each State having a commercial fishery is allotted these amounts. And I am informed that these were taken out to the fourth decimal place, and the elimination of Vermont in these statistics simply reflects the absence of a significant commercial fishery on this basis.

Senator PROUTY. What other States were eliminated?

Mr. McKERNAN. West Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PROUTY. Well, it seems to me while we do not have what may be interpreted as commercial fisheries in Vermont, and perhaps in these other States, fishing is a very important factor in our recreational income. We have fish hatcheries on a well-planned and wellexecuted program. I am thinking now in terms of trout and landlocked salmon, bass, and other species.

But it seems to me it is rather unfair to exclude five States under this program, and certainly I shall object very strenuously to that when the committee engages in a discussion of it.

Mr. McKERNAN. Mr. Chairman, with respect to recreational fishing, there are State aid programs now in effect which provide substantial amounts of money for consideration of recreational development of fishing. The Dingell-Johnson Act is one, the Patman-Robertson Act is one in the game field. Both of these have as their primary purpose the development of recreational wildlife and recreational fishing facilities in the various States.

Senator PROUTY. Funds under those programs are available to all States, are they not?

Mr. MCKERNAN. I believe so, because again there is recreational fishing and hunting in all States, to the best of my knowledge, Senator.

Senator PROUTY. It would seem to me in the interest of equity we might broaden the definition of "commercial fisheries" and include all of the States under the program of this character.

Mr. McKERNAN. Mr. Prouty, there is certainly some justification for considering this, although this was not done in the present bill. After all, fish are eaten in the State of Vermont as well as other places, and the development of adequate markets for our fishery products is an important function in the fisheries development program.

So I would tend to agree with you that this might well be considered at some stage or other.

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. McKernan, of course you are not responsible for the bill now before the committee. It was introduced by me and cosponsored by several other Senators, 18, aiming in the direction of a simply majority. But it would seem to me, as the author of the bill, that the committee at the appropriate time, mindful of the fact that an allocation to each of these five States now omitted might result in the development of a commercial fishery in each of them where there is not now one, the committee might be disposed to set some minimum amount for those States.

Senator PROUTY. I am sure that is true, and I appreciate the chairman's expressing that view.

Senator BARTLETT. Equity must be served.

Senator PROUTY. I am quite certain it will be, thinking particularly in terms of the distinguished Senator from Alaska. I appreciate his interest.