Mr. WHITE of Maine. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is a bill which comes before the House with the unanimous approval of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee of your body. It seems to me that it might well be entitled a bill to preserve and perpetuate the fisheries of the United States.

I do not in any degree minimize its importance. It contemplates a five-year program for the construction of fish hatcheries, substations, laboratories, and there goes with it the necessity for the authorization of appropriations to make effective the judgment of the committee as to the steps necessary to be taken, if we are to preserve for future years to the people the fisheries of the United States.

I think it proper that I should indicate in the first instance what is involved in this program as a matter of expenditure. The program carried out to its maximum would in the spread of five years call for an appropriation totaling $1,770,000 for the construction program.

It would call for a maximum increase in the annual maintenance costs of the Bureau of Fisheries at the end of the five years, assuming the entire program to be carried out, of approxiimately $915,000, raising that item from about $2,083,000 for this coming fiscal year to just under $2,998,000, or approximately that, at the end of the contemplated building and expansion program. That means in round numbers, and I speak only in round numbers, that at the end of a five-year program, assuming it to be carried out to the full extent contemplated and recommended by your committee, there will be an expenditure of approximately $3,000,000 in behalf of the fisheries of the United States.

more than 21,000,000 pounds to approximately 4,000,000 pounds a year.

That, gentlemen, is what is taking place with respect to the fisheries of the United States. Unless we give heed to the scientific problems involved, unless we give heed to the question of pollution and propagation and conservation and to all of the other factors that make for perpetuation of the species, we are going to see in a few short years many of these valuable commercial foods unknown to the people of the United States. What is our duty? I have said that nature is not inexhaustible. We have seen our forests go, we have seen the buffalo go, we have seen the fur-bearing animals disappear. I shall never get out of my mind the tragic story of the Atlantic sea salmon. I referred to it the other day. Within the memory of men on this floor the Atlantic sea salmon entered 28 streams between New York and the Canadian border. To-day that Atlantic sea salmon is seen in just 1 of those 28 streams. You have seen the situation on the Pacific coast. Not many years ago the Sacramento River was a great salmon river. You have seen the catch from that river disappear, and you have seen that same process going on up to the Columbia and on up through those rivers, reaching farther up to the north and up to the Territory of Alaska, represented by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. SUTHERLAND]. It seems to your committee that we owe an obligation to the people of the United States, and we owe an obligation to those that are yet to come, to adopt every means of science and to make liberal expenditure to save this heritage to our people. This bill proposes what we believe to be a scientific, wellrounded program looking to those ends. The committee summoned before it the Commissioner of Fisheries, and I say to you that there is no project in this bill that does not have the approval of the scientific experts of the Government. After we have mapped out what we believe to be an essential program of construction, we have provided what we conceive to be a minimum of force to make useful and effective the physical aids we are giving in this bill.

I personally commend the bill to the membership of the House as a wise and necessary measure of conservation. It forces upon us, in my judgment, an obligation that we must now meet, or there will rest upon us in the years to come the onus of a clear failure to meet a manifest duty. [Applause.] Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask recognition in opposition to the bill.

Those of us charged with the immediate responsibility for considering the situation which obtains with respect to our fisheries, and of developing a ways and means for preserving those fisheries, give this proposal our unstinted and our unqualified approval. I often think that the people generally and the membership of this House fail to appreciate the magnitude of the fisheries industries, the tendencies in those industries, and what portends to the people of the United States unless we recognize the problem that confronts us and courageously and aggressively address ourselves to its solution. Roughly speaking, there are 120,000 men and women in the United States engaged in our fisheries. The catch totals annually almost 3,000,000,000 pounds of fish. The fishermen of the United States are paid something between $105,000,000 and $110,000,000 a year. Fish furnish to many people, to increasing numbers of The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for one hour. people, a valuable article of diet. Every one recognizes its food Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the comvalue. It is becoming more and more a widely used food prod-mittee, my opposition to the bill is an opposition to the bill in uct, and its dietary qualities are becoming more and more its present form; not at all an opposition to the purposes of the recognized. Nature is prodigal, but I think the history of the bill, but because the bill as it stands if enacted into law is an years demonstrates to every one who will give heed that nature encroachment upon the established Budget policy of our Govis not inexhaustible. What has been going on throughout this ernment; an encroachment which, with this precedent estab country of ours with respect to other natural resources points lished, would likely be followed by a multitude of similar a moral and carries to us a solemn warning of what will come measures and result in the destruction of the Budget system. to us with respect to this great natural resource unless we give heed to the indications and unless we meet, as I conceive it, our obligations with respect thereto.

There has been a marked loss in our fishery products in certain kinds of fish. I shall allude in general terms to only a few of them, because they are illustrative and indicate clearly what we face. Take shad. That is one of the great fish of the Atlantic seaboard. In recent years it has become more or less prolific on the Pacific coast, but in a span of 30 years the catch of shad in the United States has dropped from about 51,000,000 pounds a year to barely 15,000,000 pounds a year, a loss of more than 66% per cent. Sturgeon used to abound in the waters of the Atlantic seaboard, in the Great Lakes, and elsewhere. span of 30 or 35 years the catch of the sturgeon has dropped from 18,000,000 pounds a year to 1,200,000 pounds a year.

In a

The catch of lobster on the New England coast in 30 years has dropped from 30,000,000 pounds to slightly over 10,000,000 pounds. There again is a loss of 66 per cent of the catch of this fish. Crab was abundant at one time in the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and elsewhere, but in the period of five years from 1915 to 1920 that catch dropped from 50,000,000 pounds to about 23,000,000 pounds. In later years it has slightly increased. I think the last figures indicate that the catch has risen to approximately 30,000,000. Next take the herring of the Great Lakes. In a span of seven years that catch fell from about 35,000,000 pounds to 3,000,000 pounds. In the Great Lakes and in the Lake of the Woods, those vast inland oceans. the catch of all kinds of fish dropped in seven years from about 149,500,000 pounds to approximately 100,000,000 pounds. Those waters have apparently been depleted in that short space of years by approximately 50 per cent. The catch of whitefish in the Great Lakes area in half a century has fallen from

The bill in question has a widespread and comprehensive program of construction and maintenance of various activities that are deemed useful in promoting the ideas that the gentleman from Maine [Mr. WHITE] has urged. It involves an expenditure of several million dollars. The Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries have not submitted the measure to the Budget to ascertain to what extent, if any, it would be in conflict with the President's financial program. Their bill provides that for each of certain years to come there shall be certain new buildings provided, or new establishments created; that in each of certain years there shall be a considerable sum of money spent in the development and maintenace of those institutions or establishments. In other words, if the bill becomes a law, so far as this subject is concerned the hands of the President are tied with reference to the expenditure of money for these purposes. The Congress will insist, the committee that reported the bill, and gentlemen who are interested in the items will insist that because this law was enacted the Budget has no discretion as to the recommendations it can make to the Congress on this subject, and when the items come to Congress from the Budget it will be insisted, first, that the Committee on Appropriations has no discretion as to such items, but must recommend them to the House because of the enactment of this legislation; and then that the House and the Congress have no discretion; that these appropriations have not only been authorized but they have been directed.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL] a few minutes ago called attention to the long program of bills pending before Congress that call for new expenditures of public funds. But that list was by no means complete. I did not notice this one among the list, and I know of others that were not included in the list. It is time to stop, look, and listen.

My position on this-and I hope it will be understoodis not caused by any fear or any personal feeling as to an encroachment on the jurisdiction intrusted to the committee of which I am a member; my fear as to the bill is aroused, however, because, growing out of my experience as a member of that committee and my contact with this subject I realize what this kind of legislation will do to the Budget program, and I say to you that this House can not afford to embark upon a policy that means a destruction of the Budget policy. The Budget policy in its importance is greater than the importance of any one committee or any set of committees. It is greater even than the importance of protecting the fisheries of the country.

But there is no need for any conflict. The fisheries of the country can be protected through a proper legislative policy without tying the hands of the Budget and the Congress for five years to come.

Mr. CROWTHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMTON. Yes.

Mr. CROWTHER. According to the language of the bill these are authorizations, are they not? It will be in the discretion of the Committee on Appropriations as to whether that money shall be expended or not?

Mr. CRAMTON. Of course it would be theoretically in their discretion, but if this bill passes the gentleman from Maine [Mr. WHITE] and others interested in the item will say to the Budget and to the Committee on Appropriations and to this House that because this bill is a law there is nothing to be done but to make the appropriations. For instance, I will call to the attention of the gentleman from New York

Mr. CROWTHER. Has that policy been general, does the gentleman think?

I

Mr. CRAMTON. I will say this, that there was a case. will say to the gentleman there was a bill passed with reference to the payment of certain Indian claims in Nebraska. That bill permitted the payment of interest, a thing somewhat out of the ordinary. That bill did not attract much attention when it was considered in the House. The facts were not brought forcibly to the attention of the House. Afterwards the bill became a law authorizing the payment.

Having that information, I made a study of the bill and I have sought to suggest an amendment that would give full force and effect to the desire of the committee to have Congress indicate their interest in this program, their desire to indicate a priority program of these improvements and still not to tie the hands of the Budget and of Congress for five years to come. I have suggested this amendment to the gentleman from Maine, but he has not as yet seen his way clear to accept it. I have much regretted that, and I have hoped that even yet he might see his way clear to accept it, because it does not destroy the work of his committee; it preserves the work of his committee, but it does not, with this amendment, tie the hands of the Budget and of Congress and would seem not to be in conflict with the financial program of the President.

The first five sections of the bill provide the construction proSection 7 has various subdivisions having to do with gram. this program and the appropriations authorized. I propose to add a new subdivision to be known as subdivision (d) and to read this way, leaving the first five sections as they are:

(d) That the authorizations herein given in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 with reference to appropriations for certain specified years are for the purpose of indicating priority proposed to be given the various projects enumerated therein, but shall not be held to require the appropriations therein enumerated to be made in the years specified, and the appropriations enumerated are likewise authorized in prior or subsequent years in annual or supplemental appropriation bills.

In other words, that amendment makes it clear that the first five sections are the indicated program, with certain priorities; that from year to year the estimates will be made; and that each year it shall be in order for the Budget and for Congress to either expedite the program or to slow it up, as the financial conditions of that year and the revenues of the Government may seem to indicate.

Under the bill as presented by the committee, following up the suggestion of the gentleman from New York [Mr. CROWTHER], let me emphasize to the committee and to the Committee of the Whole that there is an item authorized for the year 1932 for a fish-cultural station in the State of Ohio. It is true Congress is not obliged to make that appropriation in 1932, although it will be insisted that they are committed; but if Congress should not make the appropriation in 1932 there would be no authority of law to make it in 1931, in 1933, or any other year. It is only

The Committee on Appropriations, under the leadership of
that wonderful man whose services we have just lost, took the
position that the claim was unconscionable as against the Gov-authorized to be made in one special year.
ernment and that we ought not to pay the amount provided by
that bill. There was no division of sentiment on that question
in the committee, so the committee did not report the amount
to the House. The gentlemen interested in it offered an amend-
ment on the floor, and the gentleman, if he likes excitement,
will find it refreshing to look back to the RECORD and see
the castigation that was heaped upon the Committee of Appro-
priations for not having reported the item in accordance with
the law. There was no doubt in my mind then that if the
item had come to the attention of the House in the beginning
the House would not have approved it; but it having come up
as it did, this House voted to put it in the appropriation bill,
because it was authorized by existing law.

The only time to safeguard these things is before a bill becomes a law. I was unable to see that there was any report on this bill from the Budget, so I brought the matter to the attention of the Budget.

Mr. QUIN. Did not the Bureau of Fisheries designate all

these items?

Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CRAMTON: This is in reply to your inquiry relative to the status of H. R. 13383, "to provide for a five-year construction and maintenance program for the United States Bureau of Fisheries." This measure has never been referred to this office for review. A study, however, has been made of its provisions, and it was presented to the President this morning to ascertain his attitude relative thereto. The President holds that this legislation would be in conflict with his financial program because of the stipulated cost for stipulated fiscal years.

Very truly yours,

H. M. LORD, Director.

Apart from that proposition there may be great changes in conditions as to the relative importance of these several projects in five years to come; there may be changes, so that instead of Kansas, North Dakota, and Arkansas being left until 1932 they ought to come in in 1930 and that something in 1930 ought to be postponed. Under the committee bill it is a hard and fast program that can not be modified by the Budget or by Congress because of lack of authority, but under this amendment it becomes flexible and it can be modified and changed in accordance with conditions.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMTON. Yes.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I was just wondering whether this legislation would be carried out if we must depend upon the Bureau of the Budget to recommend appropriations in accordance with the idea of the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CRAMTON. My observation has been-and I perhaps have watched these things as closely as anyone here, as I have been a member of that committee ever since the Budget system was inaugurated that the President, acting through the Budget, has shown a great desire at all times to meet the wishes of the legislative branch just as far as was reasonably possible, and I am satisfied that the enactment of this bill into law with the amendment I have suggested does not destroy the legislation, but would have a great deal of weight with the Budget next winter and each year afterwards in the making up of the program. Here would be an expression from Congress, and if financial conditions permitted it would be followed. But suppose there should come a slump in the revenues of the Government and a retrenchment had to be made, why should not this question be open for consideration as well as other questions? Mr. BUSBY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAMTON. Yes.

Mr. BUSBY. Is it the gentleman's idea that the designation of places and amounts are proper as contained in the bill? Is that satisfactory to the gentleman?

Mr. CRAMTON. I am speaking now of the first five sections, the construction program. I think the Budget takes the position that it would be helpful to have some knowledge as to the priority program desired by Congress, but that it is not desirable to tie their hands absolutely for five years to come.

Mr. BUSBY. There is no objection, however, as I understand, from the Budget to the different items being designated with the amounts.

Mr. CRAMTON. I do not know of any objection except the objection that the stipulated cost for stipulated fiscal years ties the hands of the President and ties the hands of Congress. The amendment I have suggested does not eliminate them from the bill but leaves it clearly to an expression of Congress as to what the Congress would like and provides that these items that are in the bill authorized for certain years are authorized for those years or for any preceding or subsequent year.

Mr. BUSBY. In view of the experience we have had with the public buildings bill which leaves to the Treasury the duty to designate places and amounts and in view of the fact that nothing particularly has been done during the two or three years it has been the law, does not the gentleman think it is proper

Mr. CRAMTON. If the gentleman will permit, it is not to be said nothing has been done.

Mr. BUSBY. Outside of the District of Columbia, I will put it.

Mr. CRAMTON. The program for Federal buildings has progressed as rapidly as it could have progressed in any event.

Mr. BUSBY. Does not the gentleman think it would have progressed more rapidly and more certainly if we had designated the places and the amounts and had required those things to be done which ought to have been done and which would have given service to the country?

Mr. CRAMTON. The only delay there has been has been the necessary preliminary examination to ascertain what buildings were required and what activities ought to be housed in these buildings. If we wanted the money spent efficiently to meet the real need, it could not have advanced any further than it has.

Mr. BUSBY. Does not the gentleman think, in view of the small amount of money, relatively speaking, contained in this bill and the great urgency that we should put behind the proposition involved in the bill, it is entirely proper in this case for us to designate and require these things to be done?

Mr. CRAMTON. I do not, or I would not be making this speech. Now let me ask the gentleman a question

Mr. BUSBY. I was trying to direct the gentleman's attention

Mr. CRAMTON. I do not know whether the gentleman is on the committee or not.

Mr. BUSBY. No.

Mr. CRAMTON. All right; I will get a somewhat unbiased judgment.

Mr. BUSBY. The gentleman sees I have no "look in ” except through the gentleman.

Mr. CRAMTON. Section 5 says there shall be a fish-cultural substation in North Dakota in 1932, and section 3 says there shall be one in Florida in 1930.

There is a section here with reference to contributions by the States, and so forth. Now, does not the gentleman conceive it is possible that in three years' time or five years' time there may be such a change in conditions affecting North Dakota and Florida that the Florida item might not be ready in 1930? I know that is a violent assumption. I think they would always be ready for $100.000 to be spent in Florida; but assuming they were not ready in 1930, and North Dakota was ready, Congress ought to have the authority, the Budget ought to have the authority, and the Appropriations Committee ought to have the authority to switch these items around, and under the committee bill this could not be done.

Mr. BUSBY. In answer to that I would suggest that the Congress would still have that power over these items when it became apparent they were not needed.

Mr. CRAMTON. But it would need legislation.

Mr. BUSBY. Yes; but we could still do those things just as we can protect the Treasury in the initiation of them.

Mr. CRAMTON. If it is so easy to get legislation, the Com mittee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries could bring this bill in every year instead of having a five-year program in one bill.

Mr. BUSBY. But we have to plan and start our work before it can be carried out, and it seems to me that the planning of the expenditure provided in this bill is very fair and very reasonable, and gives a very fair and very reasonable allocation all along the line.

Mr. BLACK of New York. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMTON. Yes.

Mr. BLACK of New York. Is it the gentleman's theory that if the bill is passed without the amendment he suggests, in case the Appropriations Committee in the first year on the first item refuses to appropriate, the whole authorization falls down?

Mr. CRAMTON.

MAY 8

Oh, no; not at all. For instance, for the

first year there are authorized items for New Mexico and Idaho
propriation authorized for these items in that year there would
for fish-cultural stations. If Congress failed to make the ap-
be no authority to make the appropriation the next year, but
other items would not be affected thereby.

Mr. ASWELL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMTON.

Yes.

Mr. ASWELL. In case of the contingency which the gentleman mentioned between Florida and North Carolina in 1930, would not Congress be in session that year?

perience, but the committee has indicated by reporting out a Mr. CRAMTON. Congress would be in session every year, as the gentleman and I both are quite aware from some exfive-year program that it is not easy to report legislation year after year.

Mr. ASWELL. This is not the only bill that this Congress has passed providing a plan for three years or five years, and the committee has studied this question perhaps more than any gentleman in the House and the five-year program came from the Director of the Budget

Mr. CRAMTON. If the gentleman has a question, all right. I can not yield for a speech. I am afraid the gentleman does not approve of the force of my speech.

Mr. ASWELL. I did not get the force of it.

Mr. CRAMTON. Does the gentleman wish to ask a question? Mr. ASWELL. I do. I want to know if the gentleman knows that the five-year program was suggested by the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. CRAMTON. of the Budget.

Oh, it was not suggested by the Bureau

Mr. DAVIS. Oh, yes.

Mr. CRAMTON. I am advised by the Budget that this bill has never been submitted to them and they were never asked for a report on it until I made my request.

Mr. DAVIS.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMTON. I yield, but I can not yield indefinitely. Mr. DAVIS. I want to say that that statement is true, but the matter was discussed by the committee with the Director of the Budget last year and the Director of the Budget was the one that originally suggested a five-year program.

Mr. CRAMTON. All right; and General Lord states to me that in so far as an indication of priority is concerned, he likes the idea, and that is preserved in my amendment; but when you come to tie him down definitely for five years and provide that the appropriations must be made at a certain time no matter what is the condition of the Treasury, he does not approve it.

Mr. LINTHICUM, Mr. GREEN, and Mr. SMITH rose. Mr. LINTHICUM. that I have no doubt he remembers some years ago we passed I merely want to say to the gentleman a bill authorizing an appropriation for parks to the extent of a cent for each inhabitant of the United States. The Committee on Appropriations has not made the appropriations in accordance with that bill.

Mr. CRAMTON. That bill said "not to exceed so much," and exceed" in a certain part of this bill. I expect to ask the committee to put the words not to Mr. LINTHICUM. Then it will be like the parks and we will not get the appropriation.

Mr. CRAMTON. Well, it leaves some discretion to Congress. Mr. SMITH. In what way does the program laid out in this bill differ from the program laid out in regard to the building appropriation of $7,500,000 to be expended, one-third each year, of roads? For instance, a few years ago we authorized an for three years in the national parks. Is not this a similar program, providing for the expenditure of so much money each year for a period of five years?

Mr. CRAMTON.
the Budget system was in operation; it was some time ago, and
I am not sure that that was passed while
I am not sure of the text of it.
Mr. GREEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMTON. I will yield.
Mr. GREEN.

I do not see anything to prevent our adding to this two years from now.

Mr. CRAMTON. I can only repeat what I said-legislation can be passed, but the Appropriations Committee would have no authority to recommend an appropriation.

Mr. GREEN. Does not the gentleman know that the industry is declining?

Mr. CRAMTON. I can not yield to go into that.
Mr. CROWTHER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMTON. I yield.

Mr. CROWTHER. Does the gentleman know whether the geographical allocation is equal-are all the States here except