I do not feel strongly about the structure and I want to emphasize that, but I do feel strongly that the mission of the new agency must be sufficiently broad to unify the program and centralize responsibility. It is my conviction that until this is done we will continue to fail in our program on the oceans.

Mr. Chairman, in an effort to save some time of the committee I did not read the entire text of my statement and I should like permission to have it placed in the record in full.

Mr. LENNON. Without objection the full text of the Senator's statement will be placed in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT BY HON. E. L. BARTLETT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

Mr. Chairman, your committee is to be congratulated for undertaking a com. prehensive review of the U.S. oceanographic and marine resources program. This is a significant and enormous task.

The committee is considering numerous legislative measures relating to oceanography and ocean resources development. The diversity of purposes and approaches reflected in these bills demonstrates clearly that there are many in Congress who feel that the present ocean program is seriously inadequate. Indeed, one might well ask whether we have anything that might properly be termed an oceanographic program. A serious and concerted program in this area will certainly require something better than our present uncoordinated effortsrepresented by a scattering of some 22 separate agency requests for funds. Several bills before this committee are concerned with improving the coordina tion of present oceanographic activity. Others are directed toward a broad reorganization of all of the Federal Government's ocean-related activities. One bill focuses on the legal problems of ocean resource development. Several proposals similar to S. 1091, which I introduced in the Senate, would create a new agency with a broad mission of marine exploration and development.

What is the reason for the flood of oceanographic legislation introduced this session? What is the basis of this obvious congressional discontent with our present effort? I will suggest an answer. It is, in my opinion, a failure of this administration to respond effectively either to the recent advances in the field of marine technology and ocean resource development or to recent changes in the international law of the sea. Other nations have not been as hesitant. The Soviet Government supports extensive oceanographic expeditions for the explorations of mineral resources; recent reports tell of their discovering manganese nodules on the floor of the Mediterranean Sea. The British have recently organized a commercial oceanology study group which will investigate the prospect of developing the mineral resources of the sea.

MARINE TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

The U.S. oceanographic activity has thus far been directed primarily toward learning more about the oceanic environment. In many respects we have been successful in this scientific effort. It is because of this success, among other reasons, that the focus of our effort in the future will shift to the utilization of the ocean and ocean resources. The oceans are being recognized more and more as a source of wealth and as a profitable field for industrial enterprise. Yesterday we were interested in oceanography primarily as a science and our activity was centered in the several universities and private institutions interested in studying the oceans. But today we are thinking more about man's working and living on the ocean floor, about the engineering and technological problems related to harvesting the resources of the seas.

I will make no elaborate attempt here to outline for the committee the many and varied ocean resources that are today within our reach. I would point out that fresh water from the sea itself is of enormous potential value. The United States has recently undertaken an accelerated saline water conversion program, important to the thirsty residents of New York, as well as to drought-stricken farmers and ranchers in southern California. This program should be strengthened and accelerated.

Sea water is also a rich source of minerals. The United States has a lead in this field because of the pioneering work that has been accomplished by Dow Chemical Co., in extracting valuable minerals, particularly bromine and magnesium, from sea water. But the U.S. Government has no program to evaluate the mineral extraction potential of the oceans.

In its natural state, acre per acre, the sea is producing about as much as the land, yet man is only taking about 1 percent of his present food requirements from the salt-water environment. When we begin to farm the oceans we can expect them to produce much greater quantities of desirable food substancesjust as farming on land has greatly increased in productivity. However, at the present, the United States does not have a program dedicated to the farming

of the sea.

With regard to efficient hunting and capturing of the living resources of the sea, new types of vessels and gear are being developed far more rapidly than they are being used. World fishery production is doubling every 12 years, but world production could be further increased if intelligent management of these resources were practiced. But this committee knows well that the United States is not engaged in this exciting development. U.S. production in 1964 was approximately the same as 30 years ago. The Fishing Vessel Improvement Act, passed by Congress last year, was far too modest. The fact is that the United States would have to build fishing vessels to the maximum extent allowed under the Fishing Vessel Improvement Act through the close of this century before we would be able to place in our own coastal waters a fleet of U.S. fishing vessels comparable in tonnage to the foreign-flag fishing vessels operating in our coastal waters at the present time.

Looking beyond the resources to be found in the sea water itself, we find in the Continental Shelf and ocean floor the ultimate repository of minerals eroded from the continent. The ocean does a remarkable job of segregating and concentrating many of the minerals which are of substantial commercial value, including phosphorus, manganese, nickel, iron, copper, and cobalt. In recent years vast discoveries of these minerals have been made on the Continental Shelf and ocean floor. Although several American industries have expressed interest in the development of these resources, the United States today has no program to assist in this effort.

One of the earliest and today certainly the most significant industry operating on the Continental Shelf is the petroleum industry. This industry, with limited encouragement from our Government, has made vast expenditures of money for the exploitation of oil and gas reserves on the Continental Shelf. Approximately 5,000 wells have been drilled on the Outer Continental Shelf, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico. Some wells have been drilled at a depth of almost 600 feet, and are located over 75 miles offshore. This development has been particularly significant because the Federal Government has directly benefited substantially from oil leases, bonuses, and royalties. During the past 10 years the United States has received over $1.2 billion from Outer Continental Shelf mineral bonuses, $14 million in rentals, and royalties estimated at $16 million a year. These figures do not include the receipts by State governments for oil leases, bonuses, and royalties on that portion of the Continental Shelf within their jurisdiction. However, strong evidence suggests that substantial returns have also been received by States from this source.

There appears to be complete agreement that further development of the petroleum resources of the Continental Shelf could be substantially expedited if the U.S. Government would undertake an accelerated program to study the Continental Shelf and ocean enviornment. The U.S. Government makes available to all industries information about the land environment to encourage economic development. It is high time that we do the same regarding the Continental Shelf environment.

One of the most encouraging recent actions by the Government was President Johnson's decision to construct an atomic-powered vehicle for commercial ocean resource work. This will for the first time give us the power needed to work on the ocean floor without the usual restrictions of time. The significance of this is not to be minimized.

I would like again to stress that these recent technological developments encouraging the economic use of ocean resources represent a shift in our interests from the collecting of scientific information to the solving of problems relating to the harvesting and utilization of ocean resources. There are obvious and extensive economic benefits to be gained by a U.S. program of resource development

53-367-65-9

of the Continental Shelf. Compare this to the situation in space exploration. No one has suggested that there is any economic benefit to be gained from exploring the surface of the Moon or Mars. In addition, there are many defense purposes to be served by additional activity in the oceans, but there is limited defense interest in any space effort beyond the Moon. The space program has no economic or substantial military justification. The only justification today is scientific. We must as a matter of national policy reevaluate our allocation of scientific effort to assure a proper balance between space and the oceans, and we must recognize the fact that an increased knowledge of the oceans, more than knowledge of space, can have defense and economic significance.

INTERNATIONAL LAW

In addition to recent technological advances affecting ocean resource development, there have occurred in the past few years significant changes in the law of the sea. These changes resulted from the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, held in Geneva in 1958. The committee is familiar with the four conventions adopted in Geneva, all of which have been ratified by the United States and all of which except the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas are in effect. It is anticipated that this remaining Convention on Fishing will become effective the latter part of this year or early next year.

The two conventions of primary interest in regard to ocean resource development are the Convention on the Continental Shelf and the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. The Continental Shelf Convention gives to each coastal nation exclusive rights over the exploitation of the resources of its continental shelf. This means that as of last year. when the convention went into effect, the United States increased by one-third the territory over which it held sovereign rights under international law. The area of this shelf acquisition-approximately 1 million square miles-surpasses that of any of our previous territorial acquisitions, including Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase.

The convention defines the shelf as the seabed and subsoil of the submarine area adjacent to the coast to a depth of 200 meters or beyond to a depth which admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the area. The sovereign right of the United States over territory is therefore related directly to our technological capability to exploit the resources of the Continental Shelf. These exclusive rights relate to mineral and other resources of the seabed (magnesium nodules) and subsoil (oil and gas) and certain living resources dependent on the shelf (clams, oysters, certain crabs).

The 1958 Fishery Convention acknowledges that each coastal nation has a dominant interest in the fishery resources of its waters and provides that such nations shall have the right to provide for the conservation of these resources. Approximately 90 percent of the world fishery catch is taken from inland waters or waters immediately over or adjacent to the continental shelf of nations within the temperate or tropic zones. The measurement of the U.S. coastline within these zones exceeds 10,000 miles. Only Indonesia, Australia, and Russia have comparable or more extensive coastlines. The other 111 nations of the world either have substantially shorter coastlines or none at all. It is estimated that U.S. coastal fishery resources are such as to permit an annual sustainable yield of approximately 20 billion pounds. The estimated value of our potential yearly catch is between $1 and $1.5 billion. Last year, however, the U.S. coastal catch was below 5 billion pounds and the foreign catch off the U.S. coast was approximately 3 billion pounds.

The evidence is quite clear that the U.S. coastal fishery resource is one of the most extensive and richest in the world. It is also clear that this resource is being underutilized by the United States and is becoming increasingly attrac tive to foreign fishing fleets. Five years ago there were fewer than 100 foreign vessels fishing off the U.S. coast. This past summer we witnessed more than 1.500 large, modern, efficient foreign-flag fishing vessels ranging between 3 and 50 miles from our coast. About one-half of this foreign fleet has been operating off the coast of Alaska. Since I am more familiary with that area, I would like to focus attention on the North Pacific.

In recent years, the Russians and Japanese have taken substantial quantities of shrimp, flounder, ocean perch, sablefish, cod, and pollack in the water above the Alaska Continental Shelf. It is reliably and conservatively estimated that these six fishery resources alone have a potential annual catch value in excess

of $200 million or over half the value of the present total U.S. catch. In 1963 the U.S. catch from the same six North Pacific fishery resources was about 100 million pounds valued at about $8 million. It is estimated that the potential annual shrimp catch off Alaska exceeds 1 billion pounds (approximately five times the present gulf coast shrimp catch); the potential annual flounder catch is 1.5 billion pounds; ocean perch, 300 million pounds; cod and pollack, 140 million pounds; and sablefish, 100 million pounds. In addition to these six stocks of fish which the Japanese and Russians are now taking, there are estimated anLual potential catches of 1.2 billion pounds of herring, 700 million pounds for hake, and 500 million pounds each for anchovy and sardines.

Although these fishery stocks appear abundant when one looks at the total resource from California to the Bering Sea, there is evidence that certain species, particularly in the Bering Sea, may be already threatened by excessive foreign fishing. The eastern Bering Sea catch of flounder by Japan 10 years ago was 18 million pounds. The combined Japanese and Russian catch in the same areas was about 1.2 billion pounds in 1961. The comparable catch figure for 1963 indicated a dramatic reduction. This sharp drop in catch was undoubtedly due to a heavy depletion of the resource. It is clear that there has recently occurred off the Alaska coast in the eastern Bering Sea one of the most rapid expansions of ground fisheries in the world.

Although the U.S. coastal fishery resource is perhaps the greatest in the world, although certain stocks are being seriously damaged by foreign fishing, and although the United States will soon, for the first time under international law, have the right and obligation to conserve these coastal fishery resources, the fact is that we have no active program to accomplish this. Under the Fishery Convention, the United States will have the right to promulgate fishing conservation regulations on the high seas to conserve these coastal fishery resources, but this will be possible only if the United States has the necessary information about the resource to support the conservation measures undertaken. However, we know little about our own coastal fishery resources. I fear foreign fishermen known more about certain coastal fishery resources in Alaska than we do. Further, the administration has advanced no program to implement the 1958 Fishery Convention.

In summary, for over 350 years the nations of the world have generally agreed that the resources of the sea and the ocean floor were held in common and that no single nation had an exclusive or even preferential right to exploit or conserve these resources. The 1958 Fishery and Continental Shelf Conventions were dramatic departures from these traditionally held tenets. The final ratification of the Continental Shelf Convention last fall and the anticipated final ratification of the Fishery Convention this year signal international acceptance of a new order and a new approach to the use of ocean resources. I am absoIntely convinced that the administration has missed entirely the significance of these recent and important changes in international law.

The seas are mankind's last frontier on this planet. For ages we have treated the ocean waters as little more than hunting grounds for fishermen, and highways for ships. Now we are awakening to see that beneath the surface of the waters lies a vast territory every bit as challenging as outer space and infinitely more promising with regard to economic reward. Man at last has the scientific capability and technical mastery to meet the challenge, and his growing need for food, water, minerals, power, and weather control gives him solid reasons for doing so. I suggest we begin to occupy and use our recently acquired 1 million quare miles of Continental Shelf and that the U.S. Government assess our extensive coastal fishery resources. We today know so little about this territory and this environment that our initial efforts will be somewhat akin to the rewards and failures of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. But the adventure beneath The surface of the sea must begin.

I mentioned earlier that the reason for the present discontent in Congress and rash of legislative proposals is a failure on the part of the administration to meet these problems and respond to these possibilities. The administration insists on floundering in a "sea" of indecision with no national program for ocean development. No less than 22 different agencies are involved in what is referred to as the "oceanographic program." Each agency is required to appear before a subcommittee of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to explain its needs. In effect this means that everyone in the executive branch is to some extent involved but no one really cares. The same is true with Congress, as far as appropriations are concerned. The senior Government officials responsible

for the Government program on the oceans consider their effort a part-time job. Every Friday afternoon, time is given to oceanography and the various ocean resources. I am saying that theirs is a full-time job. It requires full-time attention and needs full-time staff personnel.

What is needed in my opinion is a new agency with a broad mission and with a chief executive who can speak effectively in Congress and elsewhere for the administration regarding our civilian program on the oceans. This is not a Navy responsibility nor is it any longer strictly a matter of science. The legislation I introduced would establish an independent civilian agency. In my opinion. this is still the most desirable approach. I recognize, however, that the job could be accomplished by an expansion of the responsibilities of some division or agency within either the Department of the Interior or the Department of Commerce. There could be an Ocean Resources Service in the Department of the Interior, or ESSA in the Department of Commerce could be expanded to accomplish the job. I do not feel strongly about the structure, but I do feel strongly that the mission of the new agency must be sufficiently broad to unify the program and centralize responsibility. It is my conviction that until this is done we will continue to fail in our program on the oecans.

Mr. LENNON. Senator, let me commend and compliment you for a most interesting and informative statement. Mr. Mosher, any questions?

Mr. MOSHER. I don't think I have any questions, Mr. Chairman, but I also want to echo your compliment to the Senator. I think it is a very challenging statement. We are fortunate to have this as the kickoff of these hearings.

I am a little curious, Senator. You several times have suggested that the administration has failed to live up to some of its opportunities in this field recently.

Do you want to be more specific? Do you want to suggest what you think the administration might have done in the last few years? Senator BARTLETT. Surely. I added some words of my own to the prepared text. I said past administrations too. I think there has been a failure on the part of recent administrations to recognize the importance of this broad subject. I think there is an understandable reluctance on the part of these 22 agencies that are now concerned in the effort, in whatever manner it may be, to endorse a unification program, because of a natural bureaucratic fear that to do so would rob them of some of their authority. But I can't see for the life of me how we can do what we need to do, so urgently need to do, unless there is a unification of this effort.

It has proliferated now to an unnecessary and inefficient extent and I would hope, out of the hearings you are holding now, and out of similar, comparable hearings, that I hope will be held on the Senate side, that we may focus attention on this very important problem to the point where someone in the administration will say, "What goes on here? We haven't paid enough attention to this. We are glad that the congressional committees called this to our attention and brought it into focus." And then get busy and try to do the job which is required to be done.

Mr. MOSHER. You are really suggesting that the initiative is going to have to come from the Congress, that we can stimulate the administration by some action here, is that right?

Senator BARTLETT. Precisely. As you and I know, often the stimulation has to come from Congress in other areas as well.

Mr. MOSHER. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Casey.