The CHAIRMAN. Well, Ron, for the purpose of the record here, you are quite correct when you say that S. 1988 is comparable to the fishery laws of other nations, which is true. In some of these other countries, two people meet and issue a proclamation, period; whatever government happens to be in power. Very seldom do they go into a legislative body and go through the processes that we in this type of democracy have to do.

They just sit down and issue a proclamation. And they can change it from day to day. It can be 200 miles, 20 miles, 183, whatever they want. And this is what our State Department runs into.

Many of the older European countries, fishing_countries, have long since worked out treaties and conventions. But, it is pretty hard to trace a law in some of these other countries, proclaimed by a couple of people having a meeting and deciding on something.

Mr. DE LUCIEN. It is a continuing problem to cope with this situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Today's hearing points out some of the problems we have discussed here earlier, and as Senator Bartlett says, this is only the first step.

Mr. DE LUCIEN. I ask to have a telegram inserted in the record from Harold Lokken of the Fishing Vessel Owners Association in Seattle.

Senator BARTLETT. We will put it in the record, but read it, too, please.

Mr. DE LUCIEN (reading):

Regret inability to appear in person to endorse Senate bill 1988 the bill to prohibit fishing in U.S. territorial waters by persons other than U.S. nationals. Please appear in our behalf before Commerce Committee and support this legislation. It is urgently needed to prevent violation of our territorial waters by foreign fishing vessels and to give needed protection to fisheries resources which have been maintained only by U.S. sacrifices and to which the United States has thereby established a prior right. The Fishing Vessel Owners Association consisting of halibut vessel operators operating in offshore Pacific waters from California to Bering Sea urges favorable action on this bill. The Deep Sea Fishermens Union comprising the crews on our members vessels join us in supporting this legislation. Harold E. Lokken, Fishing Vessel Owners Association of Seattle.

(The telegram follows:)

RONALD DE LUCIEN,

O SEA923 NL PD SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.

Care of National Canners Association,
Washington, D.C.:

Regret inability to appear in person to endorse Senate bill 1988 the bill to prohibit fishing in U.S. Territorial Waters by persons other than U.S. Nationals. Please appear in our behalf before Commerce Committee and support this legislation. It is urgently needed to prevent violation of our territorial waters by foreign fishing vessels and to give needed protection to fisheries resources which have been maintained only by U.S. sacrifices and to which the United States has thereby established a prior right. The Fishing Vessel Owners Association consisting of halibut vessel operators operating in offshore Pacific waters from California to Bering Sea urges favorable action on this Bill. The Deep Sea Fishermens Union comprising the crews on our members vessels join us in supporting this legislation. H. E. LOKKEN,

Manager, Fishing Vessel Owners Association.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. De Lucien.

Mr. DE LUCIEN. Thank you for the opportunity of coming, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Ostensen.

STATEMENT OF JACOB OSTENSEN, REPRESENTING THE NEW BEDFORD FISHERMEN'S UNION, NEW BEDFORD, MASS.

Senator BARTLETT. The fact that you are fairly well down the list, Mr. Ostensen, doesn't mean we are not equally interested in everything you have to say, and we only wish we could have called you earlier.

Mr. OSTENSEN. Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jacob Ostensen. I am the delegate of the New Bedford Fishermen's Union in New Bedford, Mass.

The New Bedford Fishermen's Union strongly advocates the extension of the existing territorial limit.

The United States promulgated a new concept of national policy in September 1945, regarding the national resources of the subsoil and seabed of the Continental Shelf as "pertaining to the United States, subject to its jurisdiction and control." The proclamation did not define the term "Continental Shelf," but the Department of State Bulletin (Sept. 30, 1945) described it as "the area adjacent to the continent and covered by not more than 100 fathoms (600 feet) of water. The right of free navigation upon the high seas was unconditionally recognized. This new policy was meant to safeguard American rights in mining and referred specifically to oil production along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

The word "sovereignty" was not used; only the expression "jurisdiction and control." The Latin American Republics eagerly espoused the concept, generally changing the idea of control to that of sovereignty and added the area of the epicontinental sea to that of the Continental Shelf.

Chile, for instance, proclaimed a line 200 marine miles distant and parallel to the coast as the limit of her sovereignty. The coastal American nations face wide oceans, and the new boundaries generally will not cause much friction except when they interfere with existing fishing habits of other nations. The main difficulty will be the location of the 100-fathom line in areas where the topography of the coast is complex-for instance, the coast of New England with its submarine ridges and canyons.

The U.S.S.R. claims a 12-mile zone of territorial waters. France claims 6 miles, and Chile, Peru, and San Salvador claim 200 miles. Some other nations consider the Continental Shelf as their contiguous

zone.

In the last decade, the huge fleets of the Soviet Union have broken away from the home coasts and made themselves at home off Cape Cod, Newfoundland, Alaska, France, and Scotland.

There is concrete evidence that these huge Russian fishing fleets are using illegal fishing gear in these waters, and because they are catching fish which are below commercial size, we fear that they will fish out our traditional waters and make it commercially impossible for our vessels to operate.

We have already felt the effect in the hake and whiting fisheries, where landings are down, and it takes a vessel 40 percent longer to catch their trip. We are afraid that when it becomes unprofitable for the Soviet vessels to operate and catch the ground fish and herring that they are now catching, that they will turn to the flounder fishery, which is the mainstay of the New Bedford fishing economy as well as all of southern New England.

We feel some measure must be taken to safeguard the fishing industry of New England if we are to survive. Governmental policy should be extended to include fishing rights in the waters above the Continental Shelf, as described by the Department of State.

We have stated economic reasons for extension of the territorial limits, not meaning to discount the military implications that the invasion of the Soviet fleet may have in the waters off our coast. We are not versed in this aspect of the situation. In any event, both factors must be considered.

The U.S.S.R. realizes the value of its fisheries, and is doing its utmost to fully exploit the resources. It is time for our own Govern

ment to follow suit and to protect our own natural heritage.

We, the members of the New Bedford Fishermen's Union, urge the committee to extend the territorial limit of the United States, or to claim fishing rights in those waters covering the Continental Shelf to a depth of 100 fathoms.

I thank you.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Ostensen. Senator Magnuson? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ostensen, you suggest that in discussions of the Continental Shelf, that we, rather than talk about definite miles as such the shelf itself would be ragged, it wouldn't be a straight line-that we might arrive at some equitable solution on this when we begin to proclaim some rights in our Continental Shelf, that we look at the question of the depth of the water, because that might be a more practical approach than to put a mileage line or straight line some place?

Mr. OSTENSEN. Yes. In answer to that, I will say that the only fishery that exists and uses deeper water than 100 fathoms is perhaps the tuna and halibut industry, which I am not too familiar with. The 100-fathom curve or line will certainly protect the New England fisheries to a certain extent. I don't say it is going to solve the whole problem. But we hope it will be better.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course you discussed it as to depth, which would be consistent with the shelf, the terrain of the shelf, and you would establish the mileage line in that process.

Mr. OSTENSEN. Definitely. You would consider the depth more than the mileage and distance from shore.

The CHAIRMAN. Because that is a more practical way to approach the fishing in this particular case.

I have no further questions.

Senator BARTLETT. Does the New Bedford Fishermen's Union support or oppose S. 1988, the bill now under consideration?

Mr. OSTENSEN. The New Bedford Fishermen's Union supports S. 1988, whatever it will give us. We hope it will extend the territorial limit one way or another.

Senator BARTLETT. We understand the main concern you have. I have here a report from Charles E. Jackson, legislative representative of the National Fisheries Institute, and I quote from it:

The large Japanese fishing companies operating stern trawlers in the Atlantic Ocean are reported showing considerable interest in fishing hake primarily for export to Europe and Africa. These vessels have been concentrating on fishing for squid and octopus. One firm is already reported to have contracted to deliver 3,000 metric tons of hake to Spain in 1963.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ostensen.

Mr. OSTENSEN. Thank you for the privilege.

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Hugh O'Rourke, Boston Fisheries Association.

STATEMENT OF HUGH F. O'ROURKE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, BOSTON FISHERIES ASSOCIATION, INC., ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, FISH PIER, BOSTON, MASS.

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. O'Rourke, do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. O'ROURKE. No, sir. I would like to submit a detailed statement. However, I will make a brief oral statement summarizing the Boston situation.

My name is Hugh O'Rourke. I am executive secretary of the Boston Fisheries Association. I am appearing before your committee at the request of my members, who wish to be recorded in support of the bill S. 1988, which, under certain conditions, will prohibit fishing in the territorial waters of the United States by persons other than nationals or inhabitants of the United States.

Boston, which ranks third nationally in fishing value, represents a $30 million a year business, employing approximately 1,250 persons. We have been favored by a gradual increase in business each year since 1959 except during the first 6 months of 1963. This year there has been approximately 8 million pounds less of fish landed in Boston in comparison to the same period in 1962. The end result is less fish, reduction in employment, the accustomed reaction to increased cost, because most of our fish are edible fish, and any contributing factor or factors that tend to reduce the normal fish supply has understandably an adverse reaction on the industry as a whole.

Russia or other nations overfishing in New England waters affect our markets. Extensive fishing competition, commercial or noncommercial in our New England waters, can place a severe economic burden upon the industry.

Boston had faith in the slow climb of the fishing business and within the year has added two new trawlers, valued at approximately_a million dollars. These are our first new boats in 14 years. To protect this investment, immediate action must be taken to preserve our historic fishing grounds or we shall most certainly see America's first industry fade away. Militant and aggressive action on the part of your committee and Members of Congress will help to sustain our industry and contribute to its return as a world fishing power. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Rourke.
Mr. Felando, please.

STATEMENT OF AUGUST FELANDO, AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION, 1 TUNA LANE, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

Mr. FELANDO. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a prepared statement, but I do desire to make some remarks concerning the bill S. 1988, and I would like to have an opportunity to submit a written statement at a later time.

Senator BARTLETT. Granted.

Mr. FELANDO. Mr. Chairman, I am August Felando, general manager of the American Tunaboat Association. This is a nonprofit

corporation, a cooperative, organized under the California Fishery Marketing Act.

We represent approximately 60 to 70 percent of the entire American tuna fleet. We support the purpose and objectives of the bill, S. 1988. We agree with some of the prior speakers that there is a certain vagueness about section 251 of title 46, U.S.C., and we also agree with the Department of the Interior with respect to the language in the bill with regard to the exception, by international agreement. There is some question in my mind about just what those two terms mean, and we think there should be a broadening of that particular exception as stated by the Department of the Interior.

I would like to address myself principally to the sanction section, section 2 of the proposed bill.

We have had considerable experience on being on the other end of the various laws that impose sanctions on foreign fishermen and at this time I wish to point out we have strong objection to the imprisonment provision in this section 2 of the proposed bill.

We have had some of our fellows imprisoned for various offenses. We always have difficulty with other countries in determining just where we are in fishing. And we are quite concerned that this sanction section might cause reaction from other countries. And we question, really, the effectiveness of imprisonment.

The CHAIRMAN. Why would there be a reaction in a country that does it themselves?

Senator BARTLETT. I wondered the same thing.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, we shouldn't do what they do? Mr. FELANDO. Well, just because they do it, I don't think we should.

The CHAIRMAN. No. But why would there be a reaction?

Mr. FELANDO. They use the excuse, in this respect, they get a little rougher with us, and say, "Why should you complain about imprisonment? You do it to somebody else."

Senator BARTLETT. If our citizens fish illegally, they get imprisonment.

The CHAIRMAN. They get thrown in the pokey if they do it illegally. Mr. FELANDO. That is right. Sometimes I think we should perhaps have some sort of support from the International Red Cross, because I am beginning to think we are like prisoners of war. Perhaps we ought to get some sort of international agreement as to the treatment of humans.

But frankly, everyone seems to think a fisherman is somebody from out of earth and he is particularly susceptible to some rough treatment. And I feel that

The CHAIRMAN. He sometimes believes that he is gradually being run off the earth, so I guess they might have something there.

Mr. FELANDO. I feel it is not absolutely necessary for the United States to take a real harsh view toward human beings. I think there are certain other deterrents that can be provided in this bill that would do the job.

Senator BARTLETT. Like what?

Mr. FELANDO. I am particularly disposed toward economic sanctions. I feel this, that we have this provision about imposing fines of up to $10,000, which is a suitable amount, and after a series of violations, which certainly indicate flagrant, if not wanton disregard