Mr. CASEY. Senator, it is a real pleasure to have you here today and I certainly enjoyed your statement. I know that you follow this very closely and attended the Conferences in Geneva, where I had the occasion to be at one, myself, during my freshman term here.

This was the Conference in 1959 and I was completely enlightened by the fact that the other nations were focusing more attention on this, knew more about it than we did, and the lack of our interest. I think our problem is, and I think you probably agree with me— as you pointed out the space program is being well financed-and I will repeat what I have said many times, we have to glamorize and publicize the importance of the oceanography program.

More interesting, on just the Mohole project there were lots of screams because it was going to cost around $80 million. I happen to serve on the Science and Astronautics Committee of the House, and we spend three times that for one launching pad and no one complains, not that it isn't important, because I think it is, and I think it is important not only from a scientific point, but also from a defense point, but I think oceanography is important from not only a scientific but from a defense point of view.

I know that the Senator is familiar with the fact that we have tried to impress on past administrations the importance of bringing about a cohesion of the oceanographic effort and I think the Senator was in the forefront of one of the bills that we passed before, which happened to be vetoed.

I don't know what it is going to take to awaken not only the administration, but the public support for all-out oceanographic program. One thing that disturbs me, and what you touched on, is the amount of food that is taken out of our oceans, and right off of your coast particularly, and off the coast of Florida, and off the coast of Texas, where we have no program as to the regulations that we will have to promulgate to conserve the food.

In addition to that I would like the Senator's comment, which I think is related in that regard, as to how we could stimulate the fishing industry, say in your own State. Has this program of vessel loans and so forth that came out of this committee been any help in that regard?

Senator BARTLETT. Yes, decidedly it has been of help. But the fact remains, as you stated it, that our fishery in the Pacific Northwest, and elsewhere along all our coasts, is an in-shore fishery. We haven't gone out for ground fish, for example, along the west coast.

The Russians have mother ships lying directly off our coast as large in tonnage as our heavy cruisers during World War II. We have nothing comparable to this.

On the other hand, and corrections are being made on account of this loan program to which you referred, we have an outmoded, outdated fleet. I think the oldest fishing vessel in the entire fleet is one that operates from a port in Mr. Rogers' State. It was built during the Civil War and is still fishing.

West Germany is replacing fishing ships built as recently as 1954. I don't know, Congressman Casey, how we are going to do this, but I do say that you are exactly right when you say that we have to attach to this something of the glamor that accompanies the space program. This doesn't denigrate the space program at all. We desire to take

nothing away from that of course, but I think we who have studied this to a certain extent at least see the importance of early action on the part of the Government. I suspect that it won't take too much help from Government to bring private industry right in behind.

I have talked with many people who are with companies that aren't doing a thing now on the oceans, but who have a great desire to do so, who see a chance to make a profit by those operations. Of course to the best of our ability we want to foster that desire.

Mr. CASEY. One thing the Senator touched on which I am somewhat familiar with is the amount of scientific data and information available from private industry, say in the oil business. My own hometown of Houston has some very excellent exploration companies that are in that field all the time, as well as Dow Chemical, which is just outside of Houston and has done a fine job in extracting minerals from sea water.

Senator BARTLETT. Dow has done a tremendous job.

Mr. CASEY. They have done a terrific job and without any substantial, that I can think of, Government help. Their interest has been purely a profit motive, and if that one company can flourish as well as it has on its own, no telling what we could accomplish with a little stimulus from governmental interests.

Senator, do you have a companion bill introduced by a House Member that is before us?

Senator BARTLETT. Yes. Congressman Rivers of Alaska has one and Congressman Keith.

Mr. CASEY. I thought that might be the bill and I have been glaneing through it. I notice that you have approached it like we have approached it in the past, that you would establish a commission. When we tried to write one according to the desires or according to what we were told by the executive departments and scientific advisers, they didn't want anything compulsory. They wanted us to turn all the "shalls" to "may" and wanted to leave it all at their broad discretion.

I am inclined to agree with you that the bills that have been introduced this session indicate that some of the Members of the Congress, myself included, are getting a little impatient and we better stick these "shalls" back in and definitely create an organization and insist that some type of organization bring this together, and I am with you. I appreciate the attitude you are taking. You are not interested in any particular pride of authorship, just so you get somebodySenator BARTLETT. Get going.

Mr. CASEY. Or some organization to bring it together and get going, and I commend the Senator for his attitude and you can rest assured that you have my wholehearted support in your endeavor.

Senator BARTLETT. I thank you.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Pelly?

Mr. PELLY. Senator, I think I greet you maybe more warmly than anyone else of this committee because you and I have such a community of interest out in the Pacific Northwest. I have admired your contribution to oceanography and fisheries and certainly, while occasionally you and I might have a difference, we are just like members of the same family; we quarrel

Senator BARTLETT. I can't remember when one last occurred.

Mr. PELLY. Once in a while people in Alaska think that some of us down in Seattle are a little selfish, but I can assure you that basically our policy is what is good for Alaska is good for Seattle, and you know how the business interests of Seattle have felt toward their No. 1 customer in Alaska.

I notice that your particular bill, S. 1091, calls for a new agency. Did you have hearings in the other body?

Senator BARTLETT. No; we haven't had hearings yet. We haven't been as timely as this committee has in approaching this whole broad subject.

Mr. PELLY. I would say this: That you have been very busy over there turning out legislation in your subcommittee and I commend you for it because I know that you have had hearings and passed out important legislation during this session of Congress in very substantial numbers.

Senator BARTLETT. There has been no lack of bills.

Mr. PELLY. I wish we had acted on some of them. I was wondering about H.R. 912, which may be the Rivers bill; I think that also called for a new agency.

Senator BARTLETT. I am not sure if that is the number of the House bill.

Mr. PELLY. In looking through what is called a compilation of oceanography bills to be considered by this subcommittee, I notice it includes the report from the executive office of the President, and there the Director, Donald Hornig, has indicated a very strong preference for the other approach; namely, the approach of our chairman's bill, and some of us have introduced similar bills, which is a quite different approach.

I think that you were in conference on an oceanographic bill once with some of us on this committee and we thought we could work our will against the views of the White House and we got a veto on a bill, and that is why maybe we are here today.

Senator BARTLETT. I would think that would be one reason. I think at that time too there was not even as much comprehension of the importance of this whole broad subject as there is today. It is my conviction that as this understanding grows throughout the country we of the Congress will have better opportunity to send down to the White House legislation which will do the job and which will be approved.

Mr. PELLY. I think our chairman of the House side has done a tremendous job

Senator BARTLETT. I agree wholeheartedly.

Mr. PELLY (continuing). In trying to work out some of the different viewpoints. I am confident that will happen. I might just ask you a question or two with regard to your statement.

You referred to the 1958 Fishery and Continental Shelf Convention which has expanded our resources so vastly, as you have pointed out. Have the Russians signed that convention?

Senator BARTLETT. The fishery convention?

They signed the Continental Shelf, but not the Fishery Convention. Mr. PELLY. They recently signed I think a convention or a treaty with us covering king crab.

Senator BARTLETT. Not a formal treaty.

Mr. PELLY. Not a formal treaty.

Senator BARTLETT. But an understanding, which, by the way, they have lived up to very well. But the evidence is very strong that the Fishery Convention will have enough signatures to become effective next year.

Mr. PELLY. This would then compel the Soviet Union for one to recognize our rights in the Continental Shelf, would it?

Senator BARTLETT. Well, I don't know whether it would or not. You and I recall so well the determination of the United States that the king crab was a creature of the Continental Shelf within the meaning of the convention and the Japanese, who had not signed that, said, no, it didn't bind them at all.

This is speculative.

Mr. PELLY. I was coming to that and going to ask you whether you knew if the Japanese had signed the 1958 Fishery and Continental Shelf Convention.

Senator BARTLETT. They have signed neither, Mr. Foster informs me, and they reject altogether our contention that the king crab, so important on the Continental Shelf off Alaska, is a creature of that shelf within the meaning of the treaty.

However, despite their failure to adhere to the treaty they have refrained from taking king crab in the areas that are in question.

Mr. PELLY. We have real international problems as far as oceanography and the resources of the sea go. I think you have gone to many of the various international meetings and are on your way maybe to helping solve some of these problems.

Certainly I think it might be helpful if we passed some legislation and had all agencies of our Government working toward this solution. Senator BARTLETT. I think it becomes more understandable why we have so many difficulties in these negotiations with foreign nations where our viewpoints differ so radically when we appreciate how much trouble we in this country have in agreeing upon the proper approach to oceanography.

Mr. PELLY. I commend you for your very complete statement and I am going to take it back to my office and read it over again because I think it has a lot of information that many of us should have here. It covers a wide field and I think it is a great addition to the record that is being made at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you.
Mr. LENNON. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator, I too share the feelings of my colleagues of appreciation for your being here and the testimony you have given us. I also share your feeling that the Congress is going to have to do something in this field and that we just can't wait for proposals to come from the administration.

If past action is any guide I would think that we are going to have to be more forceful than we have ever been before and I think your testimony certainly has been helpful in pointing up the problem.

It is my hope from the hearings that we are having and the Senate has concluded that we can go into this entire problem and come out with a proposed solution of at least getting started to doing something

in this field and if, as I anticipate, although I hope not, the governmental agencies that we have called upon to comment on legislation and activity in this field come up and say, "Well, we don't think we ought to do. We are going to do an in-house study or we are going to do something ourselves," then I think we had better get together, some of the members of this committee and the Senate, and go over and see the President ourselves and let him know how strongly we feel about this matter.

I want to know how you feel about this matter.

Senator BARTLETT. Congressman Rogers, I will sum up my feeling by saying I applaud your sentiment and your intention.

Mr. ROGERS. I am glad to know that and I did feel with your strong interest in this field that we could count on your cooperation, and if we can get the House together here and if necessary call on the President ourselves after we come together on an understanding of what we think should be done, I think this must be necessary if we get the response from the governmental agencies that we have had in the past.

Senator BARTLETT. It is important enough to do just that.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Tupper?

Mr. TUPPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Bartlett, I would like to join my colleagues in commending you for a most constructive statement. My State of Maine shares many common problems with the State of Alaska in fishery matters despite the distance between those two States. It is my recollection that the Continental Shelf Convention specifically includes the rights to sedentary species and those species that depend upon constant contact with the ocean floor.

Wouldn't you say, Senator, that this most certainly should include all species of crabs and probably all species of lobster?"

Senator BARTLETT. I hope it can be done.

Mr. TUPPER. Thank you. I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator BARTLETT. I certainly hope so because I think that this is our resource and we should use it.

Mr. LENNON. Senator, would you comment on that. Are you in a position to spell out categorically the implementations of the Continental Shelf Convention with respect to the respective countries rights to the assets or the resources on the ocean floor or floor level.

Senator BARTLETT. No, I most assuredly am not, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LENNON. That has been signed you say.

Senator BARTLETT. Yes, but all the determinations will be arrived at from evidence produced by scientists. I am not such and so I couldn't answer Congressman Tupper very authoritatively. To date our biologists, and the Russians agree with this, have determined to their own satisfaction that the king crab does come within this category. It may be that later a similar decision will be made with respect to the lobster.

I don't know, and so I am not the best witness on this subject.
Mr. TUPPER. Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will yield on this mat-

ter

Mr. LENNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TUPPER (continuing). It is again my recollection that this Continental Shelf Convention, and also a bill passed by the Congress last