56 



do the research work. Instead of having to come to the Committee on Appropria- 

 tions every year to fighl for an appropriation. The same thing is being done 

 for agriculture, and I am all for it. 



"I am a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and I know how hard 

 it is to obtain funds for research. Every year it is necessary for such an item 

 to go through the Bureau of the Budget. The first funds the Bureau cuts off 

 are research funds. That has been done to such an extent that there has been 

 very little fishery research, and the result has been that the whole fishing 

 industry in the United States, which is a big industry and employs a great 

 many persons, is going down and down. 



******* 



"Mr. Aiken. There is now more than 70 percent out in the open which those 

 interested in fisheries could ask for. Why go after what is already appropri- 

 ated to another purpose? It is directly contrary to what I thought was the 

 policy of the Senate, namely, to have all appropriations out in the open where 

 people can see them. It is directly contrary to the recommendation of the 

 Hoover Commission, for which Congress appropriated $2 million. 



■Mr. Magnuson. Mr. Hoover was a bad fisherman. Probably that is the 

 explanation." 



100 CONG. REC. 6585 (1954). 



The legislative history indicates that the usual presumption, that general 

 appropriations are available only for those purposes for which specific ap- 

 propriations are not made, is not applicable to Saltonstall-Kennedy funds. 

 Those who had an opportunity to consider and comment on Section 713C-3(a> 

 prior to its enactment had no doubts that the funds from this "general appro- 

 priation" would be used to supplement specific appropriations for ongoing re- 

 search. For example, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior stated, in a letter 

 of April 1, 1954 to the Chairman of the House Committee on Merchant Marine 

 and Fisheries : 



"Unquestionably there is an acute need for greatly expanded research with 

 respect to certain basic problems which the fishing industry itself cannot 

 effectively finance or coordinate. This is particularly true with respect to tech- 

 nological and biological studies. The Department of the Interior, through the 

 Fish and Wildlife Service, presently is attempting to solve some of these 

 problems. As the agency primarily responsible for the welfare of the domestic 

 fisheries, it collects and publishes basic statistics; conducts a daily market 

 news service ; makes economic studies ; administers the Fishery Cooperative 

 Marketing Act; develops methods of handling, utilizing, and preserving fishery 

 products ; conducts research on all technological fishery matters ; conducts an 

 educational service ; develops foreign and domestic markets ; explores for new 

 fishing grounds ; develops and tests fishing gear ; conducts biological research 

 on all our fisheries ; and manages the fisheries of Alaska. Many of these activ- 

 ities have been limited, however, by a lack of available funds. If the fishing 

 industry of this country is to continue to compete on an equal basis with the 

 fishing industries of other countries, many of which are directly subsidized. 

 it is essential that a substantial increase in funds for these purposes be made 

 available." (Emphasis added.) 



I f.S. Code Cong, and Admin. News, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2480 (1954). In the 

 Senate, it was stressed repeatedly (with various amounts being cited) that 

 several million dollars would be available pursuant to other appropriations for 

 purposes covered by the Saltonstall-Kennedy fund. See, e.g., 100 Cong. Rec. G*">81 

 (1954) (remarks of Senators Aiken, Duff and Magnuson) ; 100 Cong. Fee. 6585 

 (1954) (remarks of Senator Saltonstall) ; 100 Cong. Rec. 6587 (1954) (remarks 

 of Senators Magnuson and Aiken). Senator Aiken pointed out, for example, 

 that the budget upon which FY 19. r >5 appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife 

 Service would be based included specific appropriations of $353,000 for explora- 

 tory fishing, $282,000 for technological research, $150,000 for statistics, $43,000 

 for economics. $280,000 for market news, and $1,725,000 for the Branch of 

 Fisheries Biology, of which $214,000 was scheduled for shellfish investigations. 

 100 Cong. Rec. 6581 (1954). Thus it was no secret to those involved that the 

 Saltonstall-Kennedy funds were to supplement other "specific appropriations*' 

 for fisheries research. 



