Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
UNITED STATES COAST Guard,

Washington, D.C., September 13, 1963.

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in compliance with your request during hearings of your subcommittee on September 5, 1963, that the Coast Guard explain its reasons for recognizing 3 miles as the limit of the U.S. territorial sea.

In carrying out its responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States upon the high seas and waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction, the Coast Guard must often interpret legislation which either explicitly or by implication extends only to the limits of the territorial waters. One statute, for instance, prohibits the taking of halibut within the U.S. territorial waters by persons other than nationals or inhabitants of the United States. (Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1937 (50 Stat. 326, 16 USC 772(b)). In applying such statutes to particular situations the Coast Guard is guided by judicial determinations of the extent of territorial waters and by statements of executive policy on the matter. A case arising under the Submerged Lands Act (67 Stat. 29, 43 USC 1301 et. seq.) considered the question whether States' rights to exploitation of submerged lands within their boundaries would conflict with executive policy regarding relations with foreign countries, if such State boundaries were held to extend beyond 3 nautical miles. United States v. Louisiana, 363 US 1 (1960). In passing on this question the Supreme Court recognized the duty of the executive to determine the geographical limit to the territorial sea:

"The power to admit new States resides in Congress. The President, on the other hand, is the constitutional representative of the United States in its dealing with foreign nations. From the former springs the power to establish State boundaries; from the latter comes the power to determine how far this country will claim territorial rights in the marginal sea as against other nations. (United States v. Louisiana, 363 US 1, 35 (1960)."

Executive expressions of policy on the subject have uniformly upheld the 3-mile limit. The principle was first asserted by Thomas Jefferson in a note to Great Britain in 1793. (Reprinted in House Ex. Doc. No. 324, 42d Cong., 2d sess. (1872), p. 553-554) În diplomatic dealings the executive branch has adhered to this policy. The Deputy Legal Advisor, Department of State, so testified before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on March 4, 1953. (S. Doc. 1035, p. 1051–1053). A recent reaffirmation of the policy was issued to the 1960 Law of the Sea Conference at Geneva by the chairman of the U.S. delegation. He stated that the 3-mile rule is and will continue to be established international law, to which the United States adheres. It is, he said, the only breadth of territorial sea on which there has ever been anything like common agreement, and the United States has no obligation to recognize claims of other nations to a greater breadth. (U.N. Doc. A/ČONF. 19/8, p. 34)

The Coast Guard has received no indication from the Department of State that the above executive policy will be changed. Present programs of law enforcement and budgetary planning are based on the assumption that the policy will be continued.

Sincerely yours,

E. J. ROLAND, Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it is very important to find out just exactly how we at one time arrived at it.

Admiral ROLAND. I might add for U.S. vessels, of course, our laws apply wherever they are.

The CHAIRMAN. That would be by rules and regulations. But what do we consider the width of our territorial waters? The Coast Guard has to follow, of course, the tradition and law and the custom. I say that this bill may be the beginning.

Admiral ROLAND. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The existing procedure might have been fine 35 or 40 or 50 or 100 years ago, but for today's fishing purposes, it is surely inadequate.

Admiral ROLAND. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Other nations in the world, for their fishing purposes, think so too, including some of those we have been talking about here today.

Admiral ROLAND. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no other questions. I think the amendments you suggested are very important.

What are you doing up in Alaska now? I, too, like to talk about Alaska. Did you say the commander is making a study up there? Admiral ROLAND. Yes. During this past season-you know we run an Alaska fisheries patrol, as well as a Bering Sea patrol every year in Alaska. During this past season, we have beefed up this patrol, the Alaska fisheries patrol, by bringing in aircraft from other districts. Well this hurts the other districts, of course, but we wanted to actually test what we need out there.

Well, Commander Kelly has made a study-the season is of course drawing to a close now-he has made a study as to our permanent needs up there, in both vessels and aircraft, if we are to continue the level of patrol we have had this year, and he has determined our needs, if this is a seasonal thing or if it is a year-round patrol.

The CHAIRMAN. Commander Kelly, did the east Bering Sea halibut decision have any bearing on the requirement for more patrol by the Coast Guard, both by air and by water?

Commander KELLY. Yes, Senator; I would say that it does.

The CHAIRMAN. I refer, of course, to the extra patrols required by the change in the North Pacific International Fisheries Convention. Commander KELLY. Yes. The areas requiring patrols are defined by the conventions in effect. And once this has been established, a certain level of enforcement must be accomplished.

So in answer to that, the answer would be, "Yes, it did increase the area requiring patrol."

The CHAIRMAN. Do you go out as far as the 175th meridian on the salmon?

Commander KELLY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you go beyond the 175th?

Commander KELLY. I believe the requirement for patrol is completely to the east of the 175th meridian.

The CHAIRMAN. It is, but I wondered if you ever went beyond for the purposes of information?

Commander KELLY. No, sir. Our patrol areas do not require us to go further for any reason.

The CHAIRMAN. Šo your directive is only to that particular point, as far as the salmon fishery is concerned?

Admiral ROLAND. As far as the law enforcement is concerned. I am sure we do go beyond to make observations.

The CHAIRMAN. This is mainly aircraft, isn't it?
Admiral ROLAND. Aerial; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What have you found, or what are your plans for the Gulf of Alaska, now that we find encroachment in there? Incidentally, I am glad you mentioned the word "poach" in here. This bill should be known as the beginning of an antipoaching legislation.

What are your plans in the Gulf of Alaska, where there recently has been encroachment and poaching by fleets of other nations?

Commander KELLY. The patrol areas defined again in the southern part of Alaska and it includes the territorial waters around through the Kodiak area. Here the area is expanded into the gulf, but not a complete coverage of the gulf. This then is extended farther in the territorial waters along the Aleutian chain. Toward the tip of the Aleutian chain there is a large square area which requires patrol because of the fishing concentrations. This area then extends from the end of the Alaska peninsula, up toward the Pribilof Islands, and from there back to the Alaska mainland to the east.

This latter area encompasses the Bering Sea, of course. And these are the areas that have been specified this year for patrol and, of course, there have been emergent requirements, such as the one you referred to, where special investigation is given when a specific incident occurs in these areas.

The CHAIRMAN. And you would get your information about specific incidents in two or three ways. Sometimes as the admiral points out, intelligence from the fishermen themselves, sometimes your own surveillance will point out something that is happening, and then you go out and take a look at that.

If the United States followed out the Truman proclamation on the Bering shelf, would your present patrol cover that area?

Commander KELLY. Yes. The area we are now patroling.

The CHAIRMAN. That square would about cover that, wouldn't it, that you handle now?

Commander KELLY. The Continental Shelf

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about the Bering Sea shelf; yes.

Commander KELLY. It extends from the end of the Alaska peninsula, by the Pribilof Islands, on a line that angles off in that direction. The patrol area now described gives surveillance to that area at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it extend south and east of the Pribilofs? Commander KELLY. The Continental Shelf does not extend out into that area.

The CHAIRMAN. But would you go north of the Pribilofs at all? Commander KELLY. No, sir; our air surveillance does not go north of the Pribilof at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. So if we said we are going to stick to the Continental Shelf declaration, you would have to add a patrol up there? Commander KELLY. This is true.

Admiral ROLAND. This would depend somewhat on what we say we are trying to protect on the Continental Shelf.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it would depend on what species of fish or what is happening up there in that area. But you do not now, as I understand it, unless there is some special instance, in the so-called heart of the Gulf of Alaska, patrol much of that area, do you?

Commander KELLY. Our patrols as specified now are air patrolsThe CHAIRMAN. Pretty much along the cost and out, rather than in the so-called heart of the Gulf of Alaska?

Commander KELLY. Right.

I might say we have ships that we rotate into the Alaskan area out of Seattle. And they make passage on these coming and going to the

area.

The CHAIRMAN. They go through the area, but there would be no regular patrol?

Commander KELLY. Yes; only on a selective basis.
The CHAIRMAN. On a selective basis?

Commander KELLY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no further questions.

Senator BARTLETT. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator BARTLETT. We thank you, Admiral Roland.

Senator BARTLETT. The next witness will be one who has flown here clear from Alaska to testify-Alaska has a certain interest in this legislation, a very considerable interest.

We will now hear from Edward S. Marvich, deputy commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD S. MARVICH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

Mr. MARVICH. My name is Edward S. Marvich, deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss S. 1988-a bill to prohibit and provide penalties for foreign fishing in the territorial waters of the United States and in certain other areas. It is extremely gratifying to see the leadership provided by you and your colleagues in seeing that this bill is presented to the Congress. Time is of the essence. I trust the Congress will look favorably on this bill and look forward to its early enactment into law.

The Federal Government plays the primary role in enforcing commercial fishing regulations and laws on the high seas in connection with our international agreements. It is of paramount importance that Federal agencies be provided with basic statutory authority to enforce laws and regulations pertaining to fishing by foreign nationals within the territorial limit.

Equally important is the necessity for Federal enforcement in connection with foreign fishing intrusion on the high seas where the United States has asserted its claims to any fishery resource under the provisions of the Convention of the Continental Shelf as provided for in the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea of 1958. S. 1988 would meet the need for clear-cut Federal responsibility and enforcement authority to protect our territorial and Continental Shelf fisheries resources from foreign national encroachment.

(See committee insert on p. 5.)

Mr. MARVICH. Alaska exercises enforcement of its regulations in the territorial sea on anyone violating the provisions of State statutes or regulations. Alaska has no authority to control entrance of foreign nationals into State waters unless the foreign nationals violate some Alaska law independent of intrusion.

Assistance by the Federal Government in enforcement would be highly advantageous in the case of foreign nationals. Alaska was obliged, in several cases, to apprehend foreign nationals from fishing in State waters in violation of State statutes and regulations.

A case in point was the apprehension of the Japanese vessels in the Shelikof Strait area; another instance was the citation of Canadian halibut fishermen fishing in Alaska waters in the Portland Canal area. There have been many, many other instances of violations of territorial waters in Alaska by foreign vessels. Among these could be

listed the following: (a) a Japanese long liner, observed on the night of June 10, 1963, drifting 2.3 miles off Cape Cheerful, Unalaska areathe vessel's position was pinpointed by radar.

I will go through a few of these, Mr. Chairman, and then I will point them out on the map for your information.

Senator BARTLETT. Fine.

Mr. MARVICH. (b) A Russian whaler taking whales 31⁄2 miles south of Popof Head and 3 miles east of Kelly Rock near Sand Point on June 16, 1963-inside State waters.

I have some pictures of one of the Russian catcher vessels which I will present to the committee.

Senator BARTLETT. We would welcome those and they will be placed in the record.

Mr. MARVICH. (c) Russian trawlers in the vicinity of Ilnik near Port Moller on June 3, 1963, their position as established by radar showed that three of these vessels were close to the 3-mile limit while two were clearly within the 3-mile limit; (d) on June 28, 1963, a Soviet catcher vessel and mothership were seen in territorial waters off Sutwik Island near Chignik; and, (e) on July 3, 1963, a Japanese whaler was seen operating 11⁄2 miles from Cape Edgecumbe in southeast Alaska.

The first sighting was the Japanese long liner off Cape Cheerful in the Unalaska area, which would be out in this area [indicating]. Mr. MARVICH. The second was at Ilnik, which is just to the east of Port Moller, which would be right in this area in here [indicating]. Mr. MARVICH. The third one was the Russian whaler near Popof Head, which is close to Chignik, which would be in this area here [indicating.)

Senator BARTLETT. On the south side?

Mr. MARVICH. Yes; on the south side. And the one off of Sutwik Island is right near Chignik and the last one was off Cape Edgecumbe, which is just outside of Sitka, down in southeast Alaska, in this area [indicating].

To my knowledge, there has not been one apprehension by any arm of the Federal Government for commercial fishing in territorial waters. I believe the lack of any clear-cut Federal authority for foreign fishing violations committed in territorial waters has been a contributing factor in this respect. S. 1988 would cure this. Such authority is needed and the need is urgent.

Alaska has as many time zones as the contiguous 48 States-four. It is anyone's guess how many infractions of territorial waters have occurred off Alaska by foreign fishing vessels. We know of many. How many more have transpired without our knowledge is open to conjecture.

When one considers the fact that there has been little if any concerted effort to provide vessels which could properly patrol the thousands of miles of coastline of Alaska stretching from Dixon entrance northwest to Kodiak and the Alaska Peninsula, thence around the Aleutian Islands past Bering and Chukchi Sea to and including the Arctic Ocean, it is understandable that enforcement efforts have resulted in few apprehensions of foreign vessels violating territorial waters. The only arrests that have been made are those that were made by the State.