More importantly we are of the opinion that the zone sought to be established would be contrary to international law. The High Seas Convention prohibits any state from subjecting the high seas to its sovereignty in contravention of the freedoms of the high seas which include freedom of fishing. Although we have indicated in our position on H.R. 9531 that we are persuaded by the report of the State Department that extension of our fishing jurisdiction to 12 miles would not be contrary to international law, we think that the provisions of H.R. 14961, in so far as they extend this jurisdiction beyond 12 miles, places the United States in direct violation of the Convention, and we think this in spite of the fact that historic fishing rights would be preserved. We are also concerned that illegal action to claim exclusive fishing rights in large areas of the high seas may accelerate a trend of claims which will seriously interfere with freedom of navigation on and over the high seas. Experience has shown that there is great difficulty in restricting the impact of an illegal assertion of control over fishing, and we would expect that passage of this bill would inevitably lead to interference with the free movement of our ships and aircraft and thus be inimical to our national defense. From our conclusions regarding the legality of the proposed action under international law and from our concern that it will tend to further erode the right of freedom of navigation on the sea and in the air we oppose enactment of H.R. 14961. 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. 14961 for the consideration of the Committee. For the Secretary of the Navy. Sincerely yours, F. R. DowNS, Acting. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. GARMATZ. Your Committee has requested this Department's views and recommendations on H.R. 14961, a bill "To establish fishing zones of the United States beyond its territorial seas, and for other purposes." H.R. 14961 is similar to H.R. 9531 which is also pending before your Committee. H.R. 14961 extends United States jurisdiction to all waters in a zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States. In the context of the bill, we construe this to mean just the fisheries jurisdiction of the United States. The fisheries zone established by the bill shall be at least nine additional nautical miles from the outer limits of the present territorial sea boundary. Foreign fisheries within the zone can continue "to the extent and in the manner in which such fisheries have been conducted within such zones during the ten calendar years preceding enactment." As we indicated in our report on H.R. 9531, there are from a fisheries standpoint reasons for and against the extension of the fisheries jurisdiction of the United States to a total of 12 miles, but that 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. Of course, this is our opinion and it can be argued, but there is no doubt in our view that broader extensions of jurisdictions, such as contemplated by H.R. 14961, cannot be advantageous to the whole commercial fishing industry. The mere fact of a claim by the United States to extended jurisdictionwhether the claim were made effective or not-would strengthen the claims to extreme jurisdictions advanced by many governments in Latin America and would thus substantially increase the threat to the United States fishery operating in waters off South American coasts. In brief, such effort by the United States would, in our judgment, be ineffective in achieving the sought-after objective and at the same time would diminish by an unacceptable amount the ability of the United States to minimize the effect on United States distant-water fisheries of extreme Latin American claims. We therefore recommend against the enactment of H.R. 14961. 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, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, STANLEY A. CAIN, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of May 13, 1966 enclosed a copy of H.R. 14961, introduced by Representative Pelly, on which the Department of State's comments were requested. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to establish for the United States an exclusive fisheries zone in the waters superjacent to the continental shelf (200 metres depth contour limit) or to a distance of twelve miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, where the continental shelf is not that wide. Provision is made for continuation of foreign fishing that has been conducted in the zone for ten years preceding enactment of the Act. The Department of State is opposed to the enactment of the proposed legislation which, except for the twelve-mile fisheries limit, has no basis in international law and is contrary to the treaty commitments of the United States. As indicated in its letter to your Committee commenting on H.R. 9531, the Department of State considers that international practice permits the extension by the United States of its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction nine miles beyond the three-mile territorial sea, which would make an exclusive fisheries jurisdiction of twelve miles measured from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Few nations, however, claim exclusive fisheries jurisdiction beyond twelve miles, and the United States and most other nations have consistently refused to recognize such claims. The Department's letter commenting on H.R. 9531 also noted that the four Conventions on the Law of the Sea, adopted at the Geneva Conference of 1958, left unresolved the 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. To the extent that international practice does not warrant a claim of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction, however, the Department considers that such a claim would be contrary to the provisions of three of those Conventions. The Convention on the Continental Shelf, which has been ratified by the United States and entered into force on June 10, 1964, provides that the coastal State exercises over the continental shelf "sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources." The "continental shelf" is defined as the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows: "The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not affect the legal status of the superjacent waters as high seas, or that of the airspace above those waters." The Convention on the High Seas has also been ratified by the United States; it entered into force on September 30, 1962. Article 1 of the Convention defines "high seas" as all parts of the sea that are not included in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State. Article 2 of the Convention provides that the high seas are open to all nations and that freedom of the high seas, which is to be exercised under the conditions laid down by the Convention and by the other rules of international law, comprises freedom of fishing, among other freedoms. Finally, the Convention on Fisheries and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, which was ratified by the United States on the same date as the other two Conventions mentioned, and entered into force on March 20, 1966, provides that all States have the right for their nationals to engage in fishing on the high seas subject to their treaty obligations and the provisions of the Convention with respect to conservation and the rights and interests of coastal States. A basic principle of the Convention is that conservation measures should not discriminate against foreign fishermen. 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). THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Hon EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 14961, "To establish fishing zones of the United States beyond its territorial seas, and for other purposes." The bill would extend the jurisdiction of the United States to all waters in a zone contiguous to the territorial waters of the United States which would have as its seaward boundary a line drawn following the two-hundred-meter depth contour but in no event less than nine nautical miles distant from the outer limits of the territorial sea. In this zone, the provisions of Public Law 88-308 would apply, and the United States would exercise the same rights in respect to fisheries as it has 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 fishery 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 fishery 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 fishery 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 continue, of course, 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, [H.R. 15278, 89th Cong., 2d sess.] A BILL To extend the area within which certain foreign vessels (and the masters thereof) are prohibited from fishing; and to make domestic conservation laws applicable to foreign vessels (and masters thereof) fishing above the Continental Shelf, to the same extent that such laws are applicable to United States vessels Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the first section of the Act entitled "An Act to prohibit fishing in the territorial waters of the United States and in certain other areas by vessels other than vessels of the United States and by persons in charge of such vessels", approved May 20, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1081 et seq.), is amended by striking out "territorial waters of the United States" wherever it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "territorial fishing zone of the United States". (b) Section 5(d) of such Act is amended by striking out "territorial sea" and inserting in lieu thereof "territorial fishing zone of the United States". (c) Such Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "(e) For purposes of this Act, the term 'territorial fishing zone of the United States' includes the territorial waters of the United States and the waters extending seaward from such territorial waters a distance of 9 nautical miles, but excludes the territorial waters of any other nation. "SEC. 6. This Act may be cited as the 'Foreign Fishing Vessels Regulation Act'." SEC. 2. (a) Whenever a vessel other than a vessel of the United States is engaged in fisheries within waters above the Continental Shelf, the laws of the United States and the States relating to conservation of fish shall be applicable to such vessel, and any master or other person in charge of such vessel, to the same extent that such laws are applicable to vessels of the United States, or any master or person in charge thereof. (b) For purposes of this section (1) the terms "Continental Shelf" and "Continental Shelf fishery resource" shall have the same meaning as such terms have in the Foreign Fishing Vessels Regulation Act, and (2) the terms "fish" and "fisheries" shall have the same meaning as such terms have in the Foreign Fishing Vessels Regulation Act, except that "fish" shall not include Continental Shelf fishery resources and "fisheries" shall not include the taking, planting, or cultivation of Continental Shelf fishery resources. Mr. DOWNING. The Chair notes with great pleasure the presence of five Korean National Assemblymen who are here, I understand, on a tour studying legislative processes and Federal/State relationships, particularly in the field of fisheries. Gentleman, the committee is happy to have you with us. We wel come you. Will you stand up, please? The committee is happy to have you gentlemen with us. Stay as long as you like. We are delighted to have you. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS N. DOWNING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Mr. DOWNING. My bill is the one to be taken up first. I did not realize that I was to be chairman this morning. Unfortunately, Chairman Dingell was unable to be here. I do have a statement concerning the bill which I have introduced before this committee, which I shall now read. For almost 175 years, the United States has claimed jurisdiction over a 3-mile coastal belt. The 3-mile area was established because that was the effective range of Navy shore cannon. Thomas Jefferson established as national policy in 1793 the 3-mile coastal range as the territorial waters of the United States. Thomas Jefferson's policy is the same policy we are pursuing today. And it may be that we should continue to pursue Thomas Jefferson's policy on into the future. Let me make clear at the outset that I did not introduce this bill, H.R. 9531, because I am personally committed to the establishment of a contiguous fishing zone 9 miles beyond the 3-mile territorial sea. I am concerned, as all members of this subcommittee are concerned, over the conservation and protection of our Nation's coastal fisheries resources. And I am inclined to believe that a 9-mile fisheries zone would be a major advantage to our domestic fisheries, but this is an inclination; I frankly admit that I have not been able to come to a firm decision within my own mind. I introduced H.R. 9531 in the hope that hearings on the measure would create a record that would make it possible for this subcommittee to come to some firm conclusions on the merits and demerits of a 9-mile fisheries zone extending out beyond the 3-mile territorial sea. I know that there is disagreement among various segments of our domestic fisheries industry, and I can recall that in the past various departments of the executive branch have disagreed on the fishing zone proposal. The record, at least in my mind, is far from clear. The time has come, in my judgment, for the Congress of the United States to carefully appraise a 175-year-old policy. All of us have been working for some time to promote the U.S. exploitation of its marine resources. We are discussing national oceanographic programs. We are discussing national sea grant colleges. We are discussing fish protein concentrate and we are upgrading fisheries negotiation in the State Department. We are moving ahead on many fronts to assist our domestic fisheries, but we have been waiting for years to move ahead on the jurisdictional front. I do not know what decision the United States should make, but I do know that we cannot afford to wait much longer to arrive at a decision. The United States has not maintained its position among the world's great fishing nations. In just the past 10 years the United States has dropped from second place to fifth place on the fish catch ranking chart. We are now importing more than 50 percent of our Nation's total fish consumption. Peru, on the other hand, has increased its catch to the point that it is now the world's leader. In little more than 10 years, the United States has dropped from 13 percent of the world's catch to less than 6 percent. Our catch in this country has declined drastically, and it has declined during a period when the world's demand for fisheries produce has been accelerating rapidly. I am certain that the worldwide demand for fisheries products will continue to grow, and I would very much like to see the United States account for its proper share of the world's fish catch. The question in my mind today is this: Can the United States account for its proper share of the world's fish catch while allowing foreign fishing fleets to fish close in to our shores? Other nations are not abiding by the 3-mile limit. I believe only about 20 of almost 90 nations at the 1958 Geneva Conference are abiding by a 3-mile limitation. There is no uniformity among the nations, and I cannot recall that any proposal for uniformity has ever been approved by any of the |