The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the Committee. For the Secretary of the Navy. F. R. DOWNS, Director, Legislative Division, Acting. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., May 20, 1966. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. GARMATZ: Your Committee has requested the comments of this Department on H.R. 9530, a bill "To protect coastal fishery and other resources by implementing the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone." H.R. 9530 expresses the sense of Congress that this country implement the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone by marking on officially recognized charts the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, and by employing the straight baseline method pursuant to article 4 of the Convention where appropriate. In marking straight baselines, the President is directed to (1) determine where on the coast of the United States this method would be appropriate and in the best interests of the United States, and (2) give due publicity to the baseline establishing the inner boundary of the territorial sea where the straight baseline is used. Section 3 of the bill directs the President to follow the guidelines set forth in the Convention. We strongly recommend against the enactment of this bill. "Except where otherwise provided in these articles, the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State." Article 4 provides in part: "1. In localities where the coast line is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines joining appropriate points may be employed in drawing the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. "6. The coastal State must clearly indicate straight baselines on charts, to which due publicity must be given." In United States v. California, 381 U.S. 139, 167 (1965), the court, in commenting on the provisions of article 4, held: "We agree with the United States that the Convention recognizes the validity of straight base lines used by other countries, Norway for instance, and would permit the United States to use such base lines if it chose, * * *" Section 1 of the bill is not in mandatory terms. Section 2, however, directs the President to determine where the straight baseline method should be used. Inasmuch as the bill merely authorizes the President to use the straight baseline method, it is unnecessary. The United States, pursuant to the Convention, can now decide to use or not to use this method. Since 1964, the United States has not adopted this method. We believe, however, that the President could, in the conduct of foreign affairs, do so without the aid of legislation such as this bill, if he determined that it was in the best interest of the United States. In addition to its potential adverse effects on the conduct of foreign affairs, H.R. 9530 raises domestic problems. The use of the straight baseline method may result in the enlargement of grants of land made to the States pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act (for U.S.C. 1301-1315). Section 4 of the Submerged Lands Act confirms the seaward boundary of the coastal States as a line "three geographical miles distant [from their] coast line". The term "coast line" is defined in section 2 of that Act as "the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters". If the "seaward limit of inland waters" is extended by the use of straight baselines, the "coast line" and the seaward boundaries of the coastal States could be construed as being automatically extended and enlarged under the Submerged Lands Act. The Convention provides that waters landward of the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured are "internal" waters of the coastal State. Thus, the Convention recognizes that employment of the straight baseline method enlarges the area of inland or internal waters. In United States v. California, 381 U.S. 139, 167 (1965), the definiteness and stability which the court was attempting to give to the Submerged Lands Act grant was accomplished by "freezing" the meaning of "inland waters" in accordance with "the terms of the Convention". Although the language of the decision seems to preclude enlargement of the Submerged Lands Act grant by future changes in the Convention or foreign policy, nothing is said in that decision regarding the effect of future implementation of the present "terms of the Convention". In other words, while the court applied the definitions of the Convention to define the term "inland waters" as used in the Submerged Lands Act, nothing was said which would preclude extension of the coastal State's ownership to the submerged lands of additional "inland waters" which might be created under the present terms of the Convention if the United States should employ the straight baseline method to define the line from which its territorial sea is to be measured. Some of these additional submerged lands have mineral values which are now being developed under leases issued by this Department pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1331-1343). Revenues from these leases currently go into miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury for the benefit of the entire country. The employment of the straight baseline method, as proposed by H.R. 9530 might result in making these revenues available only to the coastal States. We believe that this result is undesirable and should be avoided. Furthermore, no good reason exists for granting this Federal property to the coastal States. Indeed, we believe that it is not the purpose of the bill to make such a grant. The benefits that might accrue from this bill, so far as commercial fisheries interests are concerned, might be the addition of some areas where the United States would have exclusive fishery jurisdiction and the certainty of an officially marked territorial boundary for enforcement purposes. On the other hand, the example set by the United States in the establishment of a territorial boundary by the straight baseline method would encourage and stimulate other countries to follow the same course. While failure on the part of the United States to adopt the straight baseline method would not prevent others from adopting that method, there is a risk that a precedent set by the United States to use that method would be followed. Further, the language of the Convention would permit the use of the straight baseline method in different ways. Other countries might use the method in a way that is detrimental to United States fishing operations off foreign coasts. On balance, the slight advantage that might be found in the application of the straight baseline method at the present time is offset by the disadvantages that would follow such application. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, STANLEY A. CAIN, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of June 29, 1965, acknowledged on July 7, 1965, requested the views of the Department of State on H.R. 9530, a bill "To protect coastal fishery and other resources by implementing the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. The proposed legislation would expres the sense of the Congress that the United States should implement the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, which as been ratified by the United States and which came into force on September 10, 1964, by marking on large scale charts officially recognized by the United States, the base line for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention; furthermore, that the United States should use straight base lines where warranted by Article 4 of the Convention. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows: "Except where otherwise provided in these articles, the normal base line for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State." Low-water line along the coast of the United States is marked on official United States charts prepared by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. No further action by the United States to implement the provisons of Article 3 of the Convention is therefore required. See United States v. California 381 U.S. 139, 176. Article 4 of the Convention provides that in localities where the coast line is deeply indented and cut into, or where there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight base lines may be employed for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea. Such base lines must be drawn in accordance with the criteria set forth in Article 4. While the use of straight base lines is warranted when the geographic conditions mentioned are present, their use is permissive and not mandatory. See United States v. California, 381 U.S. 139, 168. In the Department's view certain areas of the coasts of the United States would qualify for the use of straight base lines as provided for in Article 4 of the Convention. However, the use of straight base lines does not appear to the Department to be in the interest of the United States at this time. The use of straight base lines on the coast referred to would not have the effect of extending to any great extent the jurisdiction of the United States beyond that presently existing under the use of the normal base line, i.e., low-water mark on the coast, with the exception of the area comprised within Cook Inlet, Alaska. Since it is understood that there is no foreign fishing in Cook Inlet, extension of the United States jurisdiction to the whole of that area would not appear to be significant from a fisheries standpoint. Throughout its history, the United States has been a proponent of the freedom of the seas and its interests as a naval and maritime power indicate that this freedom should have the greatest possible extent, i.e., that the least possible areas of the high seas should come under the jurisdiction of coastal states. To this end, the United States has always adhered to the 3-mile limit of territorial sea and has sought to induce others to maintain a narrow territorial sea. The use of straight base lines by the United States might encourage other countries to do likewise, thus reducing to coastal jurisdiction areas now regarded as high seas. Furthermore, experience indicates that it cannot be expected that all of such countries would adhere strictly to the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention in drawing such straight base lines. The result would be to create at least a disputed jurisdiction over large areas of high seas. Finally, efforts which the United States has already made to dissuade certain countries from using straight base lines would be adversely affected. In the circumstances the Department does not favor action by the Congress of the nature envisaged by H.R. 9530. It may be that at some future time it will be necessary to consider again whether the use of straight base lines would be in the interest of the United States. At present, it is believed that we should refrain from using them. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, DOUGLAS MACARTHUR, II, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations (For the Secretary of State). [H.R. 9531, H.R. 9540, H.R. 10177, H.R. 10183, H.R. 13375, H.R. 13376, H.R. 13377, H.R. 13479, H.R. 15030, H.R. 15191, 89th Cong.] BILLS To establish a contiguous fisheries zone beyond the territorial sea of the United States Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is established a fisheries zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States. The jurisdiction of the United States extends to all waters in the zone and the United States will exercise the same exclusive rights in respect to fisheries in the zone as it has in its territorial sea, subject to the continuation of traditional fishing by foreign states within this zone as may be recognized by the United States. SEC. 2. The fisheries zone has as its inner boundary the outer limits of the territorial sea and as its seaward boundary a line drawn so that each point on the line is nine nautical miles from the nearest point in the inner boundary. SEC. 3. Whenever the President determines that a portion of the fisheries zone conflicts with the territorial waters or fisheries zone of another country, he may establish a seaward boundary for such portion of the zone in substitution for the seaward boundary described in section 2. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Washington, D.C., May 23, 1966. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of the Department with respect to H.R. 9531, a bill "To establish a contiguous fisheries zone beyond the territorial sea of the United States." H.R. 9531 would establish a contiguous fisheries zone stretching for nine miles beyond the territorial sea of the United States. The jurisdiction of the United States would extend to all waters in the zone and the United States would exercise the same exclusive rights in respect to fisheries in the zone as it has in its territorial sea, subject to the continuation of traditional fishing by foreign states within this zone as may be recognized by the United States. We understand that most countries have claimed jurisdiction beyond three miles for fishery or other purposes. The Department of Commerce is, of course, interested in the commercial aspects of the United States fishing industry. We are informed by the Department of the Interior that there is no significant foreign exploitation of fishing resources in the nine mile area which the bill would add to the United States fisheries jurisdiction. On the basis of this information it would appear that enactment of the proposed legislation would not result in reduced imports of fish and thereby in helping to improve our balance of payments situation, and would not materially benefit the United States commercial fishing industry at this time. On economic grounds, therefore, we do not favor enactment of H.R. 9531. We defer, however, to the Department of State and Defense with respect to the bearing the proposed legislation would have on the foreign relations of the United States and our national defense. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your request for comment on H.R. 9531, a bill "To establish a contiguous fishery zone beyond the territorial sea of the United States," has been assigned to this Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon expressing the views of the Department of Defense. The bill provides for United States jurisdiction over waters in the fishery zone, with exercise by this country of the same exclusive rights to fisheries in the zone as it has in its territorial sea, subject to continuation of traditional fishing by foreign states as may be recognized by the United States. The President could adjust the zone boundaries to avoid conflict with the territorial waters or fishery zone of another country. Since 1793 the consistent position of the United States, strongly supported by the Navy, has been that a nation's territorial sea extends three nautical miles seaward from its shores and no further. All waters seaward of this narrow belt are high seas to which certain freedoms, including fishing and navigation, are extended to all nations alike. We consider it imperative from the point of view of the security interests of the United States to preserve the existing right of free navigation on the high seas for warships and aircraft. We would, therefore, wish to avoid any action by the United States that might in any way impair or affect adversely this right. We have been advised that the Department of State report on the bill states that in view of the recent developments in international practice, action by the United States at this time to establish an executive fisheries zone extending 9 miles beyond the territorial sea would not be contrary to international law, and further states that such action would not extend the territorial sea beyond our traditional 3-mile limit and would not affect such traditional freedoms of the sea as freedom of navigation or of overflight. Accordingly, we do not oppose enactment of H.R. 9531. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report on H.R. 9531 for the consideration of the Committee. For the Secretary of the Navy. F. R. DOWNS, Acting. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. GARMATZ: Your Committee has requested the comments of this Department on H.R. 9531, a bill "To establish a contiguous fishery zone beyond the territorial sea of the United States." There are also pending before your Committee H.R. 9540, H.R. 10177, H.R. 10183, H.R. 13375, H.R. 13376, H.R. 13377, and H.R. 13479, identical bills. The bills unilaterally establish a fishery zone contiguous to the present 3mile territorial sea of the United States. This additional zone would be nine nautical miles from the outer limits of our territorial sea. The bill permit the recognition of traditional fishing by foreign countries. The United States would exercise the same rights and powers with respect to fisheries in this 9mile zone as it has in its territorial waters. The Act of May 20, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1081-1085), which prohibits foreign fishing vessels from, among other things, engaging in the fisheries within the territorial waters of the United States "or within any waters in which the United States has the same rights in respect to fisheries as it has in its territorial waters" will apply in this zone. While the United States does not now assert fishery jurisdiction in this 9-mile zone, American fishermen now fish in this zone exclusively. Except for two or three isolated instances foreign fleets have not fished in the zone. |