Capital investment in the Nation's fisheries in 1961 totaled $1,190,645,000. Of this amount $541,165,000 was in fishing craft, nets, and gear, although there has been little new capital investment in fishing vessels or gear in the past 20 years. Capital investment in freezing and processing plants was $272,400,000; in wholesale houses devoted exclusively to the fish trade, $245 million; and in retail shops, dealing in fish products $132,100,000.

In the opinion of this committee an industry in which the capital investment exceeds $1 billion is well worth preserving.

Half a million of the Nation's workers are employed directly or indirectly in the Nation's fishing industry. In 1960, the last year for which we have authentic records, the number of fishermen actively engaged in commercial fishing was 130,431, a drop of 31,032 since 1950. This is not good in view of the everincreasing demand for fishery products in this country.

The number of persons employed in transport-mostly crewmen on fishing vessels was 2,111, also fewer than a decade earlier. The number of shoreworkers in fish processing establishments was 93,625, or 8,390 less than in 1950.

Indirectly employed in the industry were 313,000 persons engaged in such occupations as the manufacture of gear or processing equipment or in boatbuilding. The 1961 catch of fish for human food was 2,479 million pounds, the lowest with the exception of one year since 1934, and 828 million pounds below the 1950 record.

While the catch of food species was declining that for industrial uses maintained a relatively high level in 1961, 2,676 million pounds, not far below the record. Imports of fish in 1961 were valued at $398 million, which was $41 million more than U.S. fishermen received for their toil and in return for their investment of more than a half billion dollars in vessels, nets, and gear.

Ironically, it appears obvious that a considerable portion of these imported fish and fish products had been caught in waters adjacent to or not distant from our own shores.

Imported fish included fresh herring, fresh and frozen tuna, canned salmon and canned spiny lobster meat, frozen groundfish and ocean perch fillets, frozen shrimp, canned sardines and tuna in brine.

In contrast to the 40 million pounds of fish products exported from the United States, 1,062 million pounds were imported.

Foreign fishermen, particularly those of the U.S.S.R. and its satellites, were crowding North American waters with immense fleets of stern ramp trawlers, mother and factory ships, against which our own fishermen with their small and ancient trawlers could not compete with any measure of equality.

Fishermen of other foreign nations also were equipped with modern ships built by or subsidized by their governments.

U.S. fishermen, by way of contrast, are almost entirely on their own.

There still remains a possibility of rehabilitating our archaic fishing fleet, but there is no way that the United States can revive an exhausted fishing ground. Conservation is a vital need and it is an immediate need.

Other nations as well as the United States will lose if the stocks of valuable food fish are exhausted and it is to their interest also that conservation practices be adopted.

The purpose of this resolution is to bring about an international conference where sound conservation practices may be considered for the benefit of mankind. The United States has a very direct interest that such a conference take place. Our population also is increasing.

Although we lead the world in total meat production, and in production of beef, meal, and pork products-and the committee hopes we always will-there is growing demand in the United States for fishery products.

Our own population is increasing rapidly. Government actuaries forecast that by 1980 the population of the United States will total more than 225 million. By the year 2000 it will reach 300 million.

President Kennedy, in a letter to Vice President Johnson on March 29, 1961, stated:

"Within two decades our own Nation will require over a million more tons of seafood than we now harvest."

The question is, when that time comes, will we find that wasteful and harmful fisheries practices by nations which share the nearby seas with us, have stripped our fishing grounds of their food species and deprived us of the needed million more pounds of protein rich seafood.

Your committee, by unanimous vote, recommends that Senate Resolution 392 be approved.

Senator BARTLETT. Admiral Roland, please, Commandant of the Coast Guard.

STATEMENT OF ADM. EDWARD J. ROLAND, COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD; ACCOMPANIED BY REAR ADM. RICHARD D. SCHMIDTMAN, CHIEF, OFFICE OF OPERATIONS; CAPT. GEORGE R. REYNOLDS, CHIEF OF THE PORT SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION; COMDR. CURTIS F. KELLY, LIAISON OFFICER, FAA; AND LT. (JG.) PETER A. LaRIVIERE, LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION

Senator BARTLETT. For the benefit of the record, Admiral, will you please identify the officers with you?

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir. On my immediate left is Admiral Schmidtman, who is the Chief of the Office of Operations at our headquarters here in Washington.

On my right is Captain Reynolds, Chief of the Port Security and Law Enforcement Division of that office.

Next to Admiral Schmidtman is Commander Kelly, who has recently completed a study, or I think he is on his final rough draft now, of a study of our requirements in Alaska for enforcement of present law. And on the far left Lieutenant LaRiviere, who has done research on this matter, to get our statement together.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you.

Admiral ROLAND. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:

I am pleased to appear before your committee to discuss the position of the Treasury Department on legislation introduced by Senator E. L. Bartlett of Alaska to preserve U.S. fisheries from foreign exploitation.

In order to set my comments in context, I feel it is important to describe at the outset the Coast Guard's role in fisheries conservation. While the responsibility to promote measures for the protection and conservation of fisheries in which the United States is interested lies with other Federal agencies, the Coast Guard has been named as an enforcement agency in most of the important statutes and treaties which deal with these subjects.

Some of these are: The International North Pacific Fisheries Convention and the North Pacific Halibut Convention, which conserve the vital salmon and halibut resources of the Bering Sea and the North Pacific Ocean; the Sockeye Salmon Convention, which affords protection for that species in the Pacific Northwest; and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention, which conserves the traditional haddock and cod fisheries far from U.S. shores. They impose penalties for violations, enforceable against vessels of each signatory nation in the courts of that nation.

Thus, the United States imposes penalties upon activities of its own nationals which threaten fishing resources on the high seas. In all consistency, penalties should also be levied against foreign exploitation of fisheries in our own waters.

Congress has not been silent on the issue of foreign vessels fishing in U.S. territorial waters. Legislation dating from 1793 guarantees the privileges of the U.S. fisheries to vessels enrolled or licensed by the

An amend

United States "and no others" (R.S. 4311, 46 U.S.C. 251). ment to this statute approved in 1961 (75 Stat. 493, 46 U.S.C. 251) introduces a minor exception to the principle of exclusive exploitation of U.S. fisheries and access to U.S. markets by U.S. vessels. This exception reaffirms that the basic rule remains established in U.S. law. The Coast Guard is responsible for enforcing this statute under its general law enforcement authority contained in 14 U.S.C. 2. However, the law provides no penalty, and under it the Coast Guard can take no action more coercive than escorting the offending vessel to international waters.

Under a construction of certain Customs laws and regulations it may be possible to penalize a foreign vessel which fishes within the territorial waters of the United States. (See 19 U.S.C. 1433, 1435, 1436.) This construction of the law has never been tested in court, and the Department does not consider it an equivalent to the proposed legislation, which addresses itself directly to the offense of poaching upon the fishery resources of the United States.

After study of the bill by the Bureau of Customs, the Coast Guard, and other members of the Treasury Department, we think that the proposed legislation will be an excellent tool in the hands of the agencies commissioned to carry out its provisions, particularly with respect to our territorial seas, and we would only propose certain changes which in our opinion would strengthen the bill from the point of view of enforcement. These changes are as follows:

1. Section 2(b) could be broadened to include all the equipment of a vessel in the forfeiture penalty and to render mandatory the forfeiture of fish taken or retained in violation of the act. We believe that forfeiture of fish stolen from the United States should be mandatory, although forfeiture of a vessel should remain a matter for the discretion of the court. The proposed wording is:

Every vessel employed in any manner in connection with violation of this act including its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores shall be subject to forfeiture and all fish taken or retained in violation of this act or the monetary value thereof shall be forfeited.

2. The power to make seizure of vessels is not presently included in section 3, although the power to make seizures of the catch and arrest of violators is there enumerated. It is suggested that present section 3(e) be renumbered as section 3(f), and the following new section 3 (e) be added:

Such person so authorized may seize any vessel, together with its tackle, apparel, furniture, appurtenances, cargo, and stores, used or employed contrary to the provisions of this Act or the regulations issued hereunder or which it reasonably appears has been used or employed contrary to the provisions of this Act or the regulations issued hereunder.

3. Section 3(e) provides for disposition of seized fish—

*** pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction or, if perishable, in a manner prescribed by regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury.

It provides the accused the further rights to post bond for the value of such fish and the power to sell such fish at his discretion (sec. 3(f)). These added rights permit the court to shift the responsibility for disposal of seized fish to the violator, if he so desires. This should minimize the risk of claims against the United States.

23-530-63- -5

66* * *

But section 3(f) goes too far when it stays the execution of a warrant of arrest or other process in rem" upon the receipt of a bond for the value of the fish only (lines 8-11, p. 4). This provision might be read to enable a violator of the act to escape U.S. jurisdiction in the vessel on which process had been issued, since apparently all process is stayed upon posting of a bond for the fish only.

Extradition would not always be available for an offense described in S. 1988. Thus, section 3(f) should be redrafted so that only the fish catch is released from execution of process upon receipt of sufficient bond.

4. It appears that problems might arise in obtaining admiralty process such as a warrant for the arrest of a vessel from a U.S. Commissioner, under section 3(b), since no authority to issue such process appears in the general powers of such Commissioners granted in title 18, United States Code. U.S. Commissioners could be helpful in seizure procedures in remote areas such as in Alaska.

It is suggested that the phrase "including warrants or other process issued in admiralty proceedings in Federal District Courts" be inserted after the word "process" in section 3(b), page 3, line 8.

5. In order to avoid any possible conflict between the present bill and 46 U.S.C. 251, the following new section 5 is proposed:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to amend or repeal the provisions of Section 4311 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, 46 U.S.Č. 251.

The Department does not understand all the implications of enforcing the prohibition in section (1) against foreign vessels taking fishery resources of the Continental Shelf. One immediate question concerns congressional intent. In the past, Coast Guard action on the high seas against foreign vessels has been taken only when it has been explicitly authorized by statutes implementing international conventions.

If Congress intends to direct the Coast Guard to enforce the Continental Shelf provisions of the bill on the high seas against vessels or nations which are not signatory to any treaty or convention protecting the fishery resources of the Continental Shelf, it would be appropriate for it to include explicit language to this effect. But we do not think that any such provision should be included without serious consideration first being given to the question of what type of enforcement would be sanctioned or appropriate under international law.

Since the State Department is a more appropriate agency than the Coast Guard to comment on this matter, we urge that its views in this regard be given consideration. The matter is complicated because the relevant convention concerning the Continental Shelf has not yet become effective and may not be signed by certain important parties.

Finally, we are not certain what species of fish or shellfish we might be called upon to protect under this provision. We anticipate fewer problems of enforcement if section (1) is rewritten to adopt the definitions of the convention of the Continental Shelf.

Because of the uncertainties surrounding the Continental Shelf provisions of the bill, the Department cannot determine the extent of Coast Guard patrols which would be necessary to enforce these provisions. With existing forces and those additional forces programed or about to be programed for enforcement of the conservation laws, the Coast Guard, with the assistance of other Federal agencies

and of intelligence supplied by the U.S. fishing fleet, should be able to prevent any significant exploitation of fishery resources in U.S. territorial waters by foreign fishing vessels.

Due to the great length of the U.S. coastline and the isolation of much of it, particularly in the State of Alaska, even with a great increase in Coast Guard forces we would not be able to guarantee that occasional incursions into U.S. waters would not occur. However, the drastic penalties provided by this bill should make such incursions a poor gamble.

In conclusion, the Treasury Department believes that this bill with the changes recommended above would be a valuable addition to the conservation laws of the United States.

Senator BARTLETT. Naturally, Admiral Roland, the committee is delighted to have the general endorsement of the Treasury Department, which you have submitted. Speaking for myself, in respect to the specific amendments which you have suggested, I applaud them, endorse them, and I think that they will be accepted without any question.

We understand the problems that would confront the Coast Guard in respect to this Continental Shelf matter, but a State Department witness will follow you shortly.

I have only one question and that is speaking of Alaska, which I like to speak of quite frequently, are your Coast Guard vessels there fast enough to overtake these foreign fishing vessels?

Admiral ROLAND. Not all of them. In most cases they are.

As you are probably aware, Senator, in the last year and a half a pretty thorough study of our roles and missions was made by a group which was principally from outside of the Coast Guard. And in general, we came out pretty well on this.

But one of the faults that were found with us was in our law enforcement activity and particularly in the fishery business. As a result of this, and because of other needs, we have a program now that in a number of years will replace a lot of the equipment which we now have. Particularly we have a vessel replacement program. The new vessels which are in this program will provide us with very good tools for this sort of work.

The vessels we are using now, some of them are quite antique. But generally I would say we have enough speed to overtake these vessels, but there are exceptions and there are some which we have failed to catch, some that we have chased.

Senator BARTLETT. You have persuaded me this program is a good one, if the Coast Guard has ships that aren't fast enough to overtake fishing vessels, you should have new and faster ones.

Senator MAGNUSON?

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, leaving out any directive under an International Fisheries Convention, what do you consider or what does the Coast Guard consider to be the width of our territorial waters? Admiral ROLAND. The territorial waters?

Three miles.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you arrive at the 3-mile figure?
Admiral ROLAND. This is in law.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you put in the record, or have your legal staff put in the record the basis, how you arrive at the 3-mile figure? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, we will submit that for the record.