I was one of a great number of witnesses appearing before the Fisheries Subcommittee of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries Tuesday and Wednesday of last week. In order to present our case as briefly and intelligently as possible, more than 50 representatives of management and labor, including both A. F. of L. and CIO affiliates, met together in an all-day industry-wide meeting the Sunday preceding, at the Mayflower Hotel. I think this was the first time in history that fishing management and labor joined together in a mutual endeavor to tell Congress how serious are the problems confronting our industry.

We are seeking relief from a situation that we believe no industry can survive. Unrestricted imports of fish and fishery products are pouring into the United States. We have charts to show you that imports of fresh and frozen fillets from foreign countries have increased nearly six times in the short space of 10 years. Meanwhile, our exports of canned fish are seriously declining. We believe no business can survive unrestricted imports and a serious loss of its export market at one and the same time. Canned fish formerly exported must now compete with fresh and frozen fish for our domestic market, while at the same time there is no effective limit on imports of fresh and frozen fillets produced by foreign nations at a fraction of our costs.

Meanwhile, the world seems to be going fishing; that in itself would not be so bad were it not for the fact that all the world appears to be looking to the United States market for the export of its fishery products. Some nations pursue the policy of keeping at home for the use of their own people the less costly species but exporting the more expensive products to the United States. In most cases the fishing industry of the United States is already producing these species, and often the United States is in fact the only market in the world for this particular class of products.

Let it be understood that the fishing industry is not asking its Government to abandon the principle of reciprocal trade agreements; that we are not asking that all foreign fish and fish products be barred from our country; but we do ask for reasonable limitations or restrictions on imports.

When I say "we," I am speaking not only of the producer and processor members of the organization I represent, but the distributor members who have agreed to support the producers and processors in asking for an import quota of 43,000,000 pounds of fresh and frozen groundfish fillets. This represents the third highest import figure in the history of our Nation. No one can say this is an unreasonable request.

A 43,000,000-pound quota is 41⁄2 times greater than the import figure of just 10 years ago. Furthermore, this is a product originated by the United States fishing industry to promote its own industry. It is a product developed on our own initiative for our own markets. But other nations have adopted this product and are now attempting to flood our markets.

Senator MILLIKIN. What product are you referring to? Are you referring to the fillets?

Mr. JACKSON. I am talking about frozen groundfish fillets.
Senator MILLIKIN. We have invented that process here?
Mr. JACKSON. Yes.

Senator MILLIKIN. All right.

Mr. JACKSON. Most nations are not capable of using frozen fillets for the reason they do not have adequate refrigeration facilities throughout their nations to permit the distribution of frozen products. Consequently, the principal market for fish fillets is in the United States, and many countries are seeking our market. Imports are steadily increasing from Canada, Newfoundland, and Iceland. Norway and Denmark are bidding for our markets, as are Holland, Sweden, and South Africa and many other nations.

Since the committee members may not be familiar with our industry, perhaps a few words on the size, importance, and extent of the fishing industry of the United States may be helpful.

The annual catch of fish and shellfish in the United States and Alaska averages about 412 billion pounds, which, incidentally, is the second largest catch in the world, of which approximately two-thirds is used for food and the remaining one-third is used for poultry and cattle feeding and other agricultural and industrial uses, including essential vitamin and amino-acid drugs, paints and oils, and hundreds of other byproducts.

The value of the catch to the fishermen in 1948 totaled about $325,000,000. When frozen, canned, smoked, pickled and processed in its many forms for food and manufactured into agricultural and industrial uses, the end products retailed in 1948 for more than $1,000,000,000. This places fishing high up on the list of big American industries.

The number of fishermen employed is about 150,000; the number of shore workers is more than 100,000; while indirect employment in allied industry, such as gear manufacture, boat building, etc., numbers more than 300,000 persons; a total employment of at least 550,000 people.

At this point I would like to refer to Mr. Ruttenberg's statement here yesterday. Mr. Ruttenberg was the CIO witness. He said:

Labor has a great deal at stake. Certain groups point out that extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act means "lower tariffs which will flood our markets with cheap goods, create unfair competition with American products, reduce our American standard of living, and result in unemployment." Then he points out that

The principal industries affected by imports are textile, wood, paper and pulp, fishing, mining, and glass manufacturing. Only a relatively small proportion of American workers are in these industries, and of these, only a limited number are directly affected by imports.

Fishing is one that he mentions, and it is certainly affected by imports, and since the term "American workers" must include all workers, it seems to me that 550,000 workers is a rather substantial amount. The total number of workers in industries threatened by foreign imports is indeed quite large. Mr. Ruttenberg's statement surprises me, particularly since his organization represents a large number of fishermen and shoreworkers.

Employed in catching fish and shellfish are about 8,000 vessels of five net tons and over; 40,000 motorboats of various kinds; and an additional 35,000 small craft such as scows, rowboats, et cetera.

There are between three and four thousand fishery shore establishments in the United States and Alaska.

The per capita consumption of fish in the United States in 1948 was about 11 pounds in edible weight.

There are only two sources of food: land and water. Because of our vast land resources, few of our people appreciate the importance of America's fishing industry. It has always been an independent industry. In most cases it is a business handed down from father to son, generation after generation. Our industry has never sought subsidies, but we do not see how long we can compete with nations whose fisheries are in most cases subsidized; subsidized not only by their own governments, but frequently by the United States Government through lend-lease during the war, and now through ECA, as well as through loans from various United States governmental agencies.

Senator BYRD. Mr. Jackson, may I amplify that statement? Do I understand that the foreign fisheries were directly subsidized by leaselend during the war?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, Senator: I think we can show that Russia had a great number of fishing vessels, the most modern in the world, which were rebuilt on our west coast in the midst of the war and toward the end of the war. The late Congressman Fred Bradley of Michigan, chairman of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries procured reports from the State Department showing that approximately $22,000,000 was spent on reconstructing vessels for the Russian Government's fishing fleet. At the end of the war Russia thus possessed the most modern fishing ships in the world.

Senator BYRD. They were donated to Russia?

Mr. JACKSON. They were obtained through lend-lease, and I don't know whether they have been paid for or not.

Senator BYRD. In regard to ECA, how does the ECA subsidize foreign fisheries?

Mr. JACKSON. Well, I would have to say "indirectly," in that they are purchasing fish, for instance, from Newfoundland and Canada. We have not been able to get hardly any purchases for the United States product. And then, of course, in establishing business in Europe, they have established fishing plants and appropriated money for the purchase of fishing vessels. One of the other witnesses will give you a specific instance where an ECA allocation has been made to Iceland, and that country is giving the American fishing industry some very stiff competition.

Senator BYRD. What about the loans that are made through various United States Government agencies?

Mr. JACKSON. I don't know how to answer that question, Senator, except that some of our loans and grants for the purchase of machinery almost certainly end up in fishing vessels and plants. I don't know how we could show it specifically. But we have charts to show you that other governments are subsidizing their fishing industries to a large extent.

But

Senator BYRD. I would be very much interested if you would elaborate on that with specific instances, and put them in the record. Mr. JACKSON. We would be very glad to do the best we can. we have difficulty getting information on this subject from Government agencies.

The fishing industry forms a very important part in the economic life of America during peace and has proven to be vital in every war America has fought. We do not believe America can afford to sacrifice its fishing industry.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I would like to ask permission to insert statements by export witnesses, who, to save the time of the committee, will not appear. But I told them I was sure the committee would be glad to put their short statements in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Export witnesses?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir; witnesses to discuss the export phase of the fishing problem, our loss of export markets, and so forth.

The CHAIRMAN. Our loss of export markets.

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will hand them to me, I will give them to the reporter so that they may be placed in the record. We will be glad to put them in.

(The statements referred to are as follows:)

Mr. CHESTER T. LANE,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,
Washington 25, D. C., March 10, 1947.

Administrator, Lend-Lease, Office of Foreign Liquidation,
Department of State, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. LANE: I acknowledge with thanks your letter of March 6 with enclosure.

*

*

*

I have read carefully your "Statement on wartime repair and conversion work under lend-lease on vessels of the Soviet fishing fleet", and note that "a total of three Soviet-owned cargo vessels were and converted by the United States Government into canneries under lend-lease". Apparently this three is the number of Russian fishery vessels that were rebuilt in American shipyards.

I would like to have the names of these three vessels and the shipyards where they were converted. I have information of a magazine article contained in the Pacific Marine Review of September 1945 which specifically named more than three Russian vessels that were converted into cannery ships, cannery tenders or refrigerator ships, all to engage in fisheries work.

The article refers to conversion work that took place in the Hurley Marine Works, Oakland, Calif. In this one yard, according to the article, major repairs or complete conversions were made on some 40 Russian vessels. Among the 40 were: Cherynshevski, Menjinski, Krabolov No. 2, Chapaev, Koryak, Refrigerator No. 1, Refrigerator No. 2, Pischevya Industria, Lieutenant Schmidt, Khabarovsk, Tanker No. 1, Pravda, Leningrad, Karl Liebnecht, Lafayette, Transbalt.

The Chernyshevski, Menjinski, Krabolov No. 2, Chapaev, Refrigerator No. 1, Refrigerator No. 2, and Pischevya Industria were definitely converted into ships utilized by the Russian fisheries in some manner. These were converted in a single shipyard on the west coast. I have had many reports that similar Russian vessels were converted into cannery, cannery tender or refrigerator ships for Russia's fishing industry in shipyards in the vicinity of Seattle; Portland, Oreg. ; Los Angeles, and perhaps other Pacific-coast ports.

Please give me a specific report on all vessels listed above listing the amounts expended in conversion, as well as reports on all other Russian vessels converted into ships for the use of the Russian fishing industry-and, also, the names and addresses of the shipyards in which they were converted.

It is very important for our committee to have information as to how many Russian vessels were converted into modern fish-factory ships of various kinds, in order, for our own American fishing industry to understand the world competition they are facing.

Very sincerely yours,

FRED BRADLEY, M. C., Chairman.

STATEMENT ON WARTIME REPAIR AND CONVERSION WORK UNDER LEND-LEASE ON VESSELS OF THE SOVIET FISHING FLEET

Early in the war the Soviet Government asked the United States to provide under lend-lease services in repairing vessels of her fishing fleet. The repairs were to aid the production of canned crab meat and other fish products from Russian fisheries in the Pacific for shipment to the U. S. S. R. The Soviet Government pointed out, in connection with this request, that their food supply was of vital importance to the war effort, and that crab meat had been found by their medical authorities to be particularly useful in the diet. of convalescent soldiers of the Red army. It was made clear that the canned crab-meat product of the Russian Pacific fisheries was looked upon by the Russians as an essential item of their diet, rather than a luxury, and was not intended for export. The crab catch in that part of the Pacific consists of crabs averaging 8 to 10 pounds in size and thus was an economical source of fish products compared with ordinary crab catches elsewhere in the world.

The guiding principle in lend-leasing repair and conversion services on crabcanning vessels for the Soviet Government was that our assistance would be limited to the maintenance of existing productive capacity and would not extend to improvements or betterments such as might have substantial postwar value. The importance of supporting food production by Russian fisheries during the crucial period of the war was clearly recognized; but, at the same time, caution was exercised to see that elements of long-term capital improvement did not creep into the repair program.

In the few instances where vessels were converted into crab canneries under lend-lease, the conversions did not materially add to the productive facilities of the Soviet fishing fleet, since crab-canning vessels were withdrawn from the Soviet fishing fleet and their canning equipment switched to cargo vessels owned and nominated by the Soviet Government.

A total of three Soviet-owned cargo vessels were withdrawn from the transPacific trade and converted by the United States Government into canneries under lend-lease, the canning equipment on board two Soviet cannery vessels being removed for installation on the three cargo vessels. The hulls of the two Soviet cannery vessels were turned over to the United States by the Soviet Government under reverse lend-lease and the vessels later used as expendables in the Pacific war. To replace the loss of dry cargo carrying space in the regular trans-Pacific trade occasioned by removal of the three cargo vessels for conversion into canneries, the United States Government lend-leased two dry cargo Liberty vessels to the Soviet Government. (These ships were part of, and subject to the same conditions as, the 125 merchant vessels transferred to the Soviet Government under lend-lease.) The Soviet Government agreed not to bring any additional cannery vessels to the United States for major repairs after this conversion was undertaken. The United States Government reserved the right to request other nominations of vessels in the event that those designated by the Soviet Government proved not to be in sufficiently good condition to warrant conversion into canneries.

The conversion work went forward on vessels nominated by the Soviet Government, work on two of the vessels being completed before VJ-day and the termination of lend-lease. Work on the third vessel was halted before VJ-day and the termination of lend-lease as soon as it became apparent that the work could not be completed in time to be of value in the war effort. Subsequently, the Soviet Government Purchasing Commission entered into a contract to complete the conversion work on the vessel and assumed all financial obligations in connection therewith accruing after August 17, 1945.

To the extent consistent with practical and effective repair and conversion work necessary to render vessels capable of performing the job for which designed, this repair and conversion work under lend-lease was limited to that required for a maximum of 2 to 3 years fishing and canning operations.