for providing charts to the merchant marine or anyone who travels the seas in a detail that we can channel ships the same as you channel aircraft in the air and avoid each other. At the present time, there is no fathometer than gives you this accuracy. There is insufficient geographical positioning available with the exactness that we have in air navigation. This is a great field for exploration where we need instrumentation and we need the ability to geographically locate ourselves so we actually know the topography of the bottom. The CHAIRMAN. How will that apply to underwater craft? Admiral KNOLL. It will be one of the great tools of underwater craft because it gives a new degree of safety because there are a lot more sea mounds on the bottom than anyone realized and as our submarines go deeper, we must know where these sea mounds are so we do not run into them. The CHAIRMAN. You have to have a roadmap? Admiral KNOLL. Eventually this is what the bottom will look like, that is true, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Then you have to have some kind of underwater radar, like for aircraft. Admiral KNOLL. That is one of the breakthroughs people are looking for, that is correct. The CHAIRMAN. How many submarines do we have now? The CHAIRMAN. About 110 and the Russians have, as I recall, 500 or 600? Admiral KNOLL. They have about 400 active, in terms of numbers, but their tonnage doesn't compare to us. The CHAIRMAN. So that the importance, just using them as an example, of having the same type of roadmaps and underwater surveys, the importance to them is great, too? Admiral KNOLL. Very great. It is just as great as it is to us, particularly as the submarines are designed to go deeper. The CHAIRMAN. Is your liaison with the other departments, would you say, good, fair, or bad? Admiral KNOLL. Liaison with the other agencies in government with an interest in oceanography could not be better. The CHAIRMAN. How often do you meet in these interagency groups? Admiral KNOLL. There is an effort to meet with the agencies interested in oceanography once a month, but there is a lot of continual meeting in terms of subcommittees and panels rather than having a plenary session of the whole committee. The CHAIRMAN. When you go to the budget with your underwater program, your oceanographic program, do you go armed with statements from the agencies on what they are doing and how it correlates with yours? Or, do you go down there all by yourself and try to justify the Navy program? Admiral KNOLL. Ours is only included in the Navy program and in very many parts of the Navy program. At the present time, it is not a line item as oceanography in the Navy program. The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you very much. I appreciate your coming. Admiral, please put in the record how many people in the Navy are engaged directly or substantially directly in the oceanographic program. (The information requested follows:) SUMMARY OF OCEANOGRAPHIC PERSONNEL OF THE U.S. NAVY There are approximately 506 personnel, including both military and civilian, engaged in oceanography in the Naval Establishment. Their distribution is as follows: Civilian : U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office_- Office of Naval Research, and its branches and laboratories_. Bureau of Weapons, and its laboratories___ Bureau of Yards of Docks, and its laboratory. Total civilian_ Military : Officer Enlisted (approximate). Total military___ The foregoing figures do not include personnel in supporting functions, such as technicians, ship crews, etc., nor does it include closely related but distinct fields such as underwater acoustics and naval engineering. It must be further remembered that much of the Navy's support of oceanography is in the form of contracts for research or other work to be done by universities, private institutions, or industry. None of the individuals supported by such contract work are reflected in the above totals. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Dr. W. M. Chapman, director, division of resources, Van Camp Sea Food Co. Doctor, it is good to see you. STATEMENT OF W. M. CHAPMAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RESOURCES, VAN CAMP SEA FOOD CO. Dr. CHAPMAN. My name is Wilbert McLeod Chapman, director, division of resources, Van Camp Sea Food Co. I serve on a number of other committees, commissions, panels, and so forth, on the State, National and international level. I have them listed in my statement. My business is the science and technology of harvesting the living resources of the sea on a worldwide basis. It has been for a long while. In the course of my professional activities, I have had occasion in the last few years to visit something over 75 countries to inquire about ocean science, fish, and fisheries. In appearing before you this morning, however, I am testifying in my personal capacity. What I have to say does not necessarily represent the opinions of any of the organizations with which I am associated, or of any other person or entity. There are several aspects of the national interest which fall within my field of experience where the national ocean program is not performing adequately. Among these are: 1. Despite very large unused, or little used, resources directly off our coast we do not catch the fish we eat, and we catch each year an increasingly less percentage of the fish we eat. In terms of round weight we now obtain about 62 percent of our fish by imports from other countries. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries can provide you with the most recent data. The table attached hereto illustrates this situation from 1948 through 1964. In Dr. Schaefer's statement you have a brief account of the latent resources available to us. In "Economics Benefits From Oceanographic Research," recently published by the National Academy of Sciences, this is treated more fully. I have recently treated on this question in "Potential Resources of the Ocean." (The article referred to appears in the appendix to the record.) To the best of our present knowledge the stocks of fish directly off our coast will produce 10 times as much crops we take from them per year; we take from them less than half the crop of fish we use per year. 2. The amount of dollars we spend abroad for fish each year is upwards of $400 million. I have just been informed it is considerably closer to $600 million. This is a ponderable part of the dollar drain. The accurate figures can be had from the sources cited above. There is no natural reason why the United States should not be a net exporter of fish, not only filling our own requirements but exporting fish and earning foreign exchange. 3. As a result of the rich unused resources off our coast, fishermen from Asia and Europe are coming to fish them in increasing variety and volume. Our impoverished and underequipped coastal fishermen resent this competition. They ask their representatives to bring pressure on the Department of State to stop this competition. This erodes continuously the law of the sea and our full freedom to use the high seas for all purposes. This freedom has been a prime objective of U.S. policy since Thomas Jefferson first enunciated the adherence of the United States to the 3-mile doctrine for the breadth of the territorial sea. This high national policy is more important to our military and mercantile interests today than ever before in our history. This causes considerable embarrassment and great diplomatic difficulty to the Department of State. The embarrassment comes from such allies as Japan accusing us, quite correctly, of acting like an impoverished, developing country in respect of sea resources. The diplomatic difficulty arises not only in the variety and depth of fishery disputes in which the United States thus becomes involved, particularly with our allies, but our inability to adopt a sufficiently strong diplomatic posture in international conferences, such as those in 1958 and 1960 on the law of the sea, to nail down our basic policy of freedom of the seas in international law. We could not do this because political pressures from the fisheries at home required us to be both protectionists and internationalists at the same time and even the maximum pressure on friends, allies, and enemies brought by the Department of State on a worldwide basis, working more efficiently and effectively than I have ever seen the apparatus work before or since, was unable to sell this schizophrenic position to the group of nations, although we came within one vote of doing so. 4. We are shipping grain out of our surplus warehouses to other countries as fast as they will accept it, but as a Nation we are doing little to tackle the prime human dietary problem in the world, which is protein malnutrition. The awful dimensions of this problem we know well. Various recent publications of the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Agriculture, and those cited above will inform you fully on this subject. It is enough to repeat that there is no human problem in the world. which bears so heavily on U.S. foreign policy as the fact that more than 60 percent of the world's human population has less than enough daily supply of suitable protein to keep it in vigorous health, that this deficiency is a root cause of the worst economic and social difficulties in the developing world, and that the prime source of infant mortality on a worldwide basis is protein malnutrition. We also know that if every person on earth had an adequate portion of animal protein per day the total use would be about 80 million tons per year. Secondly, we know the ocean is able to provide about 400 million tons of animal protein in forms suitable for harvest and use by presently known means, most of which dies and returns to the web of life in the ocean, unused. Thirdly, we know the world fisheries at present are producing somewhat less than 10 million tons of animal protein per year (about 50 million tons of fish, round weight), and Lastly, we know the world fisheries product has doubled in the last 10 years, and has been increasing at a rate of about 8 percent per year for the past 5 years. These matters are treated more fully in "Potential Resources of the Ocean" attached hereto. The United States is largely out of this swim. Our domestic fisheries jog along on an even keel. We do little of a practical nature to assist the developing countries in solving this problem themselves. Russia does otherwise. They long ago replaced us in the rank of number two fish producer in the world. Then they were replaced in this position by bustling Peru, but the Russian high seas fish production has continued to increase steadily according to planned schedule in all of the seas of the world from the Arctic to the Antarctic, and in the Indian, Atlantic, and Pacific oceans with their communicating seas and gulfs. It is now double ours, and their production has continued to increase steadily according to planned schedule. Our production stands still, and actually fell back a little last year. The most rapidly increasing domestic fishery in Africa is in Ghana. This is moving with massive and practical help from Russia. In addition Russia is landing 20,000 tons of fish per year in Ghana from its own vessels' catch off Angola and Senegal, to the great benefit of Ghana and to its own profit. Russian vessels at present are landing 2,000 tons of fresh frozen fish per month in Nigeria where the need for protein is great. It is planned that these landings will treble within 18 months to a level of 6,000 tons per month, which Nigeria so badly needs. The same thing is going on in Congo (Brazzaville), Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. In Senegal, Russia bought $6 million worth of surplus peanuts last year and for this has contracted to build for 48-071-65-8 the Government of Senegal a modern fishing and fish processing industry. Algeria has just been the recipient of an ocean research vessel from Russia. Russia is building a modern fishing harbor for Egypt at Alexandria on the Mediterranean and another at Ras Banas on the Red Sea. Russia is fishing for various kinds of fish in the Gulf of Aden and landing much of its catches in Sudan and Egypt where animal protein is badly needed, again for its own profit. Russia is building a modern port for Somalia at Berbera on the Gulf of Aden. Russia has offered to do the same for Zanzibar in East Africa. Russia has recently offered to land large quantities of fish regularly from its Indian Ocean fleets in India, whose people need the protein. Similar overtures are underway in Ceylon, which is desparately short of fish. Russia is building a $12 million fishing port in Cuba, which also needs animal protein. It has made approaches to Brazil to aid that country in this matter. This does not begin to cover the impact of the Soviet fishing revolution which is detailed more fully than this in an article of that name from Professor Borgstrom published in Food Technology, 1965, vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 64-73. It only covers observations I have made in my travels around the world in the last few months. But I think there is little wonder that Russia has some impact in these developing countries they are helping out. It must be plainly noted that whatever military, diplomatic, and political benefit Russia derives from all of this abroad, the whole operation is soundly based on a competent, expanding fishing industry at home and it does not appear to me to be operating at anything except a profit from the fishing activities themselves. 5. The tactical defense posture of the United States suffers vis-a-vis Russia because Russia has fishing operations where it needs them for these purposes and the United States does not. Some aspects of this were reported upon by President Johnson in his news conference April 3. It is no accident that the fishing base in Cuba is in a good position to interdict commerce headed for the Panama Canal, if need be. The same is true of the fishing developments in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea in their relations to transit through Suez; and the gift of a Merchant Marine and Navigation Academy to Indonesia, which lies athwart the routes of access between the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Russia has sought for years, at times with success but not so much now, to aid Iceland and the Faroe Islanders in fishery matters and by so doing win them as allies. It is no coincidence that these islands lie adjacent to the main commercial artery between North America and Western Europe. Having numerous and large fishing vessels working normally off West Africa makes them handy to keep an eye on what is going on down the Atlantic Missile Range. Russian fishing vessels turn up wherever the United States is shooting off something of interest, and for the most part they are making a living fishing there at the same time. Russian fishing fleets and fishery research vessels send back constantly to home data centers in Moscow oceanographic and meteorolog |