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. With the advent, however, of large-scale expanded fishing operations by foreign fishing fleets, a demand has developed within certain segments of our fishing industry for an expansion of the present fishery jurisdiction of the United States so that American fishermen might enjoy an exclusive right to exploit the fishery resources of this expanded area. These bills respond to this demand. There are from a fisheries standpoint reasons for and against the extension of the fishery jurisdiction of the United States. The principal reason for such an extension is that an enlarged fishery jurisdiction would reserve to some American fishermen exclusively larger fishing areas than they now enjoy. It will result in some economic advantages to these fishermen. This is based on estimates we have developed relative to the fishery catch of American fishermen off the United States and foreign coasts. The total average fishery catch for the 1959-1963 period was about 5,100 million pounds. About 63 percent of this total was taken within our present territorial waters, and about 26 percent of this total was taken beyond 12 miles and off foreign coasts. Thus, about 11 percent of the total fishery catch by American fishermen was made in the 9-mile area which the bills would add to our present fisheries jurisdiction. This percentage may, of course, vary because of conditions and the migratory nature of the resource. The principal reason advanced against extension of United States jurisdiction is that an important part of the United States industry relies upon fishing in waters close to the coasts of foreign countries and would be adversely affected by such an extension. We estimate that during the period 1959-1963 about 15 percent by value of the United States catch was taken off foreign coasts and about 2 percent (included in the 15 percent mentioned immediately above) by value was taken within 12 miles of foreign coasts. The catches consist largely of tuna and shrimp. Action by the United States to extend its jurisdiction now would make it extremely difficult for the United States to object effectively to foreign claims in the future on behalf of those segments of the United States industry which now enjoy relative freedom in waters close to foreign coasts. In addition, such a move by the United States would likely give added impetus by providing still other nations with the excuse to enforce added jurisdiction. From a fisheries standpoint, we therefore do not object to the establishment of a 12-mile fisheries zone although the advantages and the disadvantages to the United States commercial fishing industry as a whole are so balanced at this time that there is no clear case for such action. It should be pointed out that the extension of the fisheries jurisdiction of the United States would in most cases be of relatively little value in solving conservation problems. A significant proportion of the fish stocks which now support United States coastal fisheries move freely from coastal waters to offshore waters. A conservation scheme which admitted of conservation measures in only a part of the area inhabited by these stocks and left exploitation of these stocks in other waters unregulated, would be a half measure at best, and would amount to vain regulation of American fishermen. We may cite as examples the salmon, halibut, and king crab resources in waters off Alaska, the conservation of which would be benefited little by the extension of United States jurisdiction to 12 miles. 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. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of July 2, 1965 enclosed a copy of H.R. 9531 introduced by Representative Downing on which the Department of State's comments were requested. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to establish for the United States a 12-mile exclusive fisheries zone measured from the base line from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured but subject to the continuation of such traditional fishing by foreign states and their nationals as may be recognized by the United States Government. Although the Geneva Conference of 1958 adopted four Conventions on the Law of the Sea, it was recognized that the Conventions left unresolved the twin questions of the width of the territorial sea and the extent to which a coastal state could claim exclusive fishing rights in the high seas off its coast. The Conference adopted a resolution suggesting that the United Nations call a second conference to deal with these unresolved problems, which the United Nations did. At the second conference, which was held in 1960, the United States and Canada put forward a compromise proposal for a 6-mile territorial sea, plus a 6-mile exclusive fisheries zone (12 miles of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction in all) subject to the continuation for 10 years of traditional fishing by other States in the outer 6 miles. This compromise proposal failed by one vote to obtain the two-thirds vote necessary for adoption. Since the 1960 Law of the Sea Conference there has been a trend toward the establishment of a 12-mile fisheries rule in international practice. Many states acting individually or in concert with other states have extended or are in the process of extending their fisheries limits to 12 miles. Such actions have no doubt been accelerated by the support for the proposals made at the Geneva Law of the Sea Conferences in 1958 and 1960, of a fisheries zone totalling 12 miles as part of a package designed to achieve international agreement on the territorial sea. In view of the recent developments in international practice, action by the United States at this time to establish an exclusive fisheries zone extending 9 miles beyond the territorial sea would not be contrary to international law. It should be emphasized 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. With one or two possible exceptions, it is not likely that such action would be unfavorably received by other governments in view of the provision for recognition of traditional fishing, which the Department regards as a desirable provision. In the above circumstances, the Department has no objection from the standpoint of United States foreign relations to establishing a 12-mile exclusive fisheries zone subject to the continuation of such traditional fishing by foreign states as may be recognized by the United States Government. Whether the establishment at this time of a 12-mile exclusive fisheries zone would serve the longer-term economic interests of the United States and the United States fishing industry is, of course, a separate question which is discussed in a report prepared by the Department of the Interior. Inasmuch as United States establishment of a 12-mile exclusive fisheries zone would tend to support the trend already referred to, the passage of the proposed legislation would make it more difficult, from the standpoint of international law, to extend the zone beyond 12 miles in the future. 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 THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, The Honorable EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 9531, "To establish a contiguous fisheries zone beyond the territorial sea of the United States." The bill would establish a fisheries zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States nine miles wide in which the United States would exercise exclusive rights, in respect to fisheries, to the same extent as its exercises these rights in its territorial sea. Provision is made for the continuation of traditional fishing by foreign states as well as for the establishment of seaward boundaries where the zone established by the act conflicts with the territorial waters or fisheries zone of another country. The impact of the bill on this Department would be difficult to assess at this time. Under existing law, the Coast Guard enforces Federal law upon the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Present operating practices of the Coast Guard do not normally demand intensive surveillance of all existing territorial limits. If the bill is enacted, it is anticipated that present levels of patrol and enforcement activity would continue unless there is evidence of wide-spread violations of prohibitions contained in the bill. Existing long-range plans of the Coast Guard provide for a moderate increase in resources which can be made available for enforcement activity. This level of surveillance is the maximum which can be provided with existing and planned personnel and equipment. The Department notes that the bill contains no penalty or other enforcement provision in case of violation of the exclusive rights in respect to fisheries which the United States would exercise under the extension of jurisdiction stated in the bill. Under the bill's provisions, however, the penalty provisions found in Public Law 88-308 would apply to persons and vessels violating the exclusive rights of the United States to fisheries in this fisheries zone. Although the bill's provisions contain the potential for a significant increase in Coast Guard activity if the exclusive right of the United States in the fisheries zone is to be strictly enforced, there are other areas in which the bill would have an effect. The Coast Guard, in the past, has worked in close cooperation with the Department of the Interior on conservation matters. If the bill results in further conservation measures, the Coast Guard would, of course, continue to participate in their enforcement. The assertion by the United States of this limited national jurisdiction over an area that until now has been open to fishing operations of other nations involves considerations of foreign relations and national security about which the Department expresses no opinion. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of this report to your Committee. Sincerely yours, FRED B. SMITH, General Counsel. [H.R. 14961, H.R. 15011, 89th Cong., 2d sess.] BILLS To establish fishing zones of the United States beyond its territorial seas, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the jurisdiction of the United States shall extend to all waters in a zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States. Such zone shall have as its inner boundary the outer limits of the territorial sea and as its seaward boundary lines drawn following the two-hundredmeter depth contour except that the lines shall be drawn so that each point on such lines is at least nine nautical miles from the nearest point of the inner boundary. The United States shall exercise in such zone the same rights in respect to fisheries as it has in its territorial sea. SEC. 2. Whenever the President determines that a portion of the zone described in section 1 of this Act would conflict with the jurisdiction of a foreign country, he may establish a seaward boundary for such portion of such zone in substitution for the seaward boundary described in section 1 of this Act. SEC. 3. (a) The provisions of the Act of May 20, 1964 (78 Stat. 195), shall apply to the zone described in section 1 of this Act, except that nothing in this Act or in that Act shall prohibit the continuation of established foreign fisheries in said zone to the extent and in the manner in which such fisheries have been conducted within such zones during the ten calendar years preceding the enactment of this Act. (b) The Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, and in consultation with the affected foreign countries, shall ascertain the extent and manner, including the average annual catch, in which foreign fisheries have been conducted in the zone during the ten caledar years preceding the enactment of this Act. 65-204-66-pt. 1-17 SEC. 4. The provisions of this Act shall take effect ninety days after the enactment of this Act. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, 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. 14961, a bill "To establish fishing zones of the United States beyond its territorial seas, and for other purposes." H.R. 14961 would extend the jurisdiction of the United States to all waters in a zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States. Such zone would have as its inner boundary the outer limits of the territorial sea and as its seaward boundary lines drawn following the two-hundred-meter depth contour except that the lines would be drawn so that each point on such lines would be at least nine nautical miles from the nearest point of the inner boundary. The United States would exercise in such zone the same rights in respect to fisheries as it has in its territorial sea. It is our understanding that drawing the line to follow the two-hundred-meter depth contour would mean making claim to a contiguous fisheries zone stretching outward in some directions to distances from 200 to 400 miles from our coast. Since the paramount considerations and implications underlying this bill relate to matters of foreign relations and defense we defer to the agencies concerned with these matters. However, we would like to say that on economic and commercial grounds we see no advantage, on balance, to be gained from the enactment of this bill. We are informed that approximately 15 percent by value of the U.S. fishing catch, a large portion of which consisted of tuna, was taken during the period 1959-1963 off the coasts of certain Latin American countries claiming territorial waters of 200 miles. It would appear that asserting claim to the vast fisheries zone as proposed by this bill would amount to a recognition by the United States of the validity of similar claims asserted by these Latin American countries. Thus, the enactment of H.R. 14961 could well affect adversely our tuna resources, and the U.S. tuna fishing industry. 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. Sincerely, ROBERT E. GILES, General Counsel. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your request for comment on H.R. 14961, a bill, "To establish fishing zones of the United States beyond its territorial seas, and for other purposes," 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. This bill would establish a contiguous fishing zone under the exclusive fishery jurisdiction of the United States whose outer boundary would be coterminous with the 200 meter contour line as a maximum and as a minimum would extend nine nautical miles from the outer limit of the territorial sea. Within this zone the United States would have exclusive fishery rights subject only to a continuation of the fishing rights of foreign nations whose nationals have fished in the zone for the ten calendar years preceding the enactment of this Act. We are of the opinion that the use of the 200 meter contour line to define the outer limits of this zone would lead to vagueness and make regulations pertaining to the zone difficult to enforce. Further we would not like to see fishing rights confused with exploration and exploitation of the Continental Shelf as is likely if the same boundary is used to define the two zones. |