The proposal to prohibit fishing by foreign-flag vessels within our territorial waters and to prescribe suitable penalties for violations has a sound basis in existing international law since the freedom of fishing as of right is confined to the high seas (cf. par. 5, art. 14 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone). With regard to the provisions of the bill relating to the Continental Shelf, we are mindful that the Convention on the Continental Shelf would recognize that a coastal nation has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploiting its natural resources on the Continental Shelf; such natural resources being defined to include living organisms "which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil." We agree that legislation to implement this Convention is desirable. However, we anticipate a number of complex problems concerning such implementation which will require further study. The committee may therefore wish to consider deletion of this reference to the fishery resources of the Continental Shelf in order that the complex problems involved in this aspect of the matter can be considered fully at a more propitious time. The need for legislation expressly to prohibit fishing by foreign-flag vessels in our territorial waters is clear and there is no occasion for delay in this aspect of the matter. We also believe that the probihition against fishing in territorial waters except to the extent provided by international agreement is too inflexible. We believe that fishing should also be permitted when licensed by the Secretary of the Treasury with the concurrence of the affected States. This suggestion is prompted by the possibility that underutilized coastal fishery resources may exist in the future which, because of economic or other considerations would not be of interest to our fishermen, but could be harvested to the advantage of a coastal State by foreign fishing vessels. The requirement for obtaining the concurrence of the affected States recognizes the existing jurisdiction of our coastal States over fishery resources in territorial waters. The specific amendments which we recommend are: 1. On page 1, line 4, after "United States" insert a comma. technical. This is purely 2. On page 1, line 6, after "United States" insert a comma and delete "and". On line 7, after "possessions" insert ", and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,". This is for purposes of clarity and conformity with section 3. 3. On page 1, lines 7 and 8, delete "or to engage in the taking of any fishery resource of the Continental Shelf claimed by the United States". 4. On page 2, line 2, delete the period and add "or as permitted by a license which the Secretary of the Treasury may issue with the concurrence of the affected State or States". 5. On page 2, line 13, after "forfeitures" insert "shall". This is purely technical. 6. On page 4, line 1, after "authorized" delete the comma, and on line 2 after "found" insert a comma. This also is purely technical. The Bureau of the Budget has advised there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, Hon. E. L. BARTLETT, FRANK P. BRIGGS, Assistant Secretary of the Interior.. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR BARTLETT: This is in response to a recent informal request by Mr. David Price of your office for data on catches off the coasts of the United States of species covered by article 2 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea at Geneva, Switzerland, in 1958. It is evident that oysters and clams fall in this category, and there is good reason to believe that Dungeness crabs and king crabs also should be included. All are of major significance to the fishing industry of the United States. It is my understanding that information is desired concerning (1) the landings of these species in the United States in the most recent year for which data are available, (2) catches by foreign vessels, and (3) potential production of these species. With regard to potential annual harvests, it can be considered on the basis of our present data that potential harvests of clams and oysters and of king crabs in the offshore waters of Bering Sea and existing territorial waters of Alaska are not significantly different than annual harvests in recent years. Information regarding the potential utilization of Dungeness crabs and king crabs in the coastal waters of Alaska is limited to an on-the-spot evaluation and comparison of the present and potential utilization of resources to be found in added territorial waters, if the straight baseline method of defining territorial waters were adopted. Four items are enclosed: (1) table of U.S. catches by States, (2) statement presenting estimates of foreign catches, (3) table 1 presenting estimated potential production of Dungeness crab, and (4) table 2 presenting estimated potential production of king crab. It is hoped that these data and estimates will fill the need expressed by Mr. Price. Sincerely yours, DONALD L. McKERNAN, Director. Catch of oysters, Dungeness and king crabs, and clams by States, 1961 NOTE. Data on the catch of oysters and clams represent weight of meats. BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, August 30, 1963. FOREIGN CATCH OF KING CRABS, CLAMS, AND OYSTERS IN U.S. CONTINENTAL SHELF WATERS In 1961, the Soviets took a total of 38,700 metric tons of king crab from the North Pacific and adjacent waters, compared to the Japanese catch of 27,800 metric tons. Soviet and Japanese catches of king crab cannot be separated so as to enable the determination of amounts taken in U.S. Continental Shelf waters. No information is available on foreign catches of clams or oysters in U.S. Continental Shelf waters. Attached is a copy of airgram A-83, dated July 22, 1963, from the American Embassy, Tokyo, giving 1962 and 1963 data on Japanese king crab production in Bristol Bay. The figures for 1962 are for the entire season from April through November. The data for 1963 show production from April through July 14. The Japanese had planned to fish for king crab in the Gulf of Alaska this year but after consultations between United States and Japanese Government representatives, in both Washington and Tokyo, the Japanese Government withheld proposed licenses for this year. To: Department of State. [Department of State Airgram No. 83] Date: July 22, 1963. From: American Embassy Tokyo. Subject: Japanese king crab production, Bristol Bay, 1963. The Embassy was informed by an authoritative source that the two Japanese king crab mothership fleets operating in Bristol Bay from the beginning of the season in April to July 14 had packed a total of 137,168 cases (482-pound cans per case) of king crab meat. Production to July 14 was 58.5 percent of the total quota of 235,000 cases for the 1963 season. According to information received from the Japan Canned Crab Exporters Association, Bristol Bay king crab production in 1962 totaled 130,000 cases (48 2-pound cans per case). The canned crab pack for Bristol Bay to July 14 had exceeded the total 1962 pack by 7,168 cases. The crab fishing industry believes that the 1963 quota will be attained before November 30. For the chargé d'affaires ad interim: ARNIE J. SUOMELA, Fisheries Attaché. TABLE 1.-Present and potential utilization of Dungeness crab in additional territorial waters of Alaska as encompassed by the straight baseline method [In terms of average annual poundage and value] TABLE 2.-Present and potential utilization of king crab in additional territorial waters of Alaska as encompassed by the straight baseline method COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: By letter dated August 20, 1963, acknowledged August 22, you requested our comments on S. 1988. The stated purpose of this measure is to prohibit fishing in the territorial waters of the United States and in certain other areas by persons other than nationals or inhabitants of the United States. Our Office has no special information which would assist in determining the need for such measure. However, we note that subsection 3(a) would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to designate officers and employees of the various States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories and possessions of the United States, to aid in the enforcement of the proposed measure. When so designated, such officers and employees would be authorized to function as Federal law enforcement agents. While it is not our intention to suggest that those persons, while performing such duties, should be afforded the rights accruing Federal employees under various statutes, we would like to point out that without a clarifying pronouncement by the Congress, some confusion could attend the designations provided for in subsection 3(a). By way of specific example as to how the Congress has met a similar situation, the act of August 2, 1956, chapter 878, 70 Stat. 934, provides for the exchange of employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and employees of State political subdivisions or educational institutions. Subsection 7(b) of the act of August 2, 1956, provides that State employees assigned or appointed to the Department of Agriculture shall, under stated conditions, be treated, for the purpose of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 790, as though they were employees as defined in the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. We feel that the Congress should make it clear whether employees designated under subsection 3(a) shall be considered Federal employees for the purpose of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as amended, and other statutes administered by the U.S. Civil Service Commission. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States. Senator BARTLETT. We are very glad to have the Chairman of the full committee here this morning, and, as a matter of fact, the Chairman of this subcommittee too, who has a deep, abiding, long-term interest in this great problem, and who has joined in the introduction of this bill. Our first witness will be another cosponsor, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, whose problems are comparable to those of ours on the Pacific coast. Senator Kennedy, we will be glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD M. KENNEDY, SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear here this morning. I would especially like to thank you, Senator Bartlett, and Chairman Magnuson, for your vigorous and able leadership on legislation to improve the competitive position of our fishing industry. Under this leadership the Senate has passed S. 627, to promote State fishery research, and the Commerce Committee has favorably reported S. 1006, the U.S. Fishing Fleet Improvement Act. It was my privilege to cosponsor and work for these bills. I favor this legislation, most fundamentally, because I believe it aids good law enforcement. Moreover, it aids good law enforcement in areas of extreme concern to our fishermen. Under existing Federal law, fishing in U.S. territorial waters by foreign vessels is prohibited. But this prohibition is of little more effect than mere words. The existing Federal law does not provide effective sanctions to enforce the prohibition. The Coast Guard may order a foreign vessel, trespassing in a territorial fishery, to leave the territorial sea. No more effective remedy is provided to enforce U.S. law. In my judgment, the existence of such a hollow prohibition is unwise. It is not effective. It is an invitation to violators. It does not instill an attitude of responsibility to law. It does not allow the United States to back up its edict, and it therefore certainly does not generate respect from others. It artificially limits the alternatives available to our enforcement officers. The need for more effective sanctions against violators of our territorial fisheries is becoming greater. On the floor of the Senate, Senator Bartlett has emphasized several cases of alarming intrusions into our territorial seas off Alaska this summer. On July 28, two Soviet whaleboats were sighted west of Kodiak, north of Nakchamik Island. That same day, another catcher and a mother ship were seen in the territorial waters off Sutwik Island. Two days later, four additional whale killer vessels were sighted, one and a half miles west off Nakchamik Island. On July 3, the Toshi Maru, a Japanese whaler, was sighted operating one and a half miles from Cape Edgecumbe. A week later, on July 10, three Japanese whaling vessels were sighted between Hazy and Coronation Islands. All these trespasses were within the 3-mile territorial limit. Intrusions in our Atlantic territorial fisheries have not been as frequent, although there have been some incidents off the east coast. However, with the rising Soviet activity outside the territorial limit, particularly on the Georges Bank off Cape Cod, the possibility of unauthorized intrusions into our territorial sea increases. The Russians have an armada out there now-in mid-August the Coast Guard actually counted 169 Russian vessels, including medium trawlers, large trawlers, freighters, and large factory ships and there were undoubtedly many more vessels which were concealed by fog cover. I do not believe that in the face of this mounting activity at the edge of our territorial sea we should keep our hands tied. As the committee knows, this bill would permit fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture against violators of our territorial fisheries. It would also authorize swift and sure enforcement procedures by permitting the authorities to seize vessels operating illegally and bring them to justice. It would clearly place enforcement responsibility in the Coast Guard, the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Customs. Sanctions such as these are by no means unique among maritime nations. Canada has a law which provides similar sanctions, the Canadian Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. I have this act with me, and I ask that it be included in the record at the end of my remarks. Senator BARTLETT. That will be done. Senator KENNEDY. In particular, sections 6, 7, and 8 enumerate sanctions which include seizure, arrest, forfeiture, fine, and imprisonment. I am advised that the Russians enforce similar sanctions in their territorial waters. The bill before us today also deals with the need to protect the fishing resources of our Continental Shelf out beyond the territorial |