Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,

[Telegram]

KODIAK, ALASKA, February 18, 1964.

Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.:

Unanimous support given for S. 1988, bill to prohibit and provide penalties for foreign fishing in U.S. waters.

PETER M. DEVEAU,

Chairman, Kodiak Area Advisory Committee to the Alaska Board of Fish and Game.

The CHAIRMAN. Now we are very pleased and honored to have one of our old friends and associates, a former Member of the House and member of this committee, to appear with us this morning, the Honorable E. L. Bartlett.

Mr. Bartlett.

STATEMENT OF HON. E. L. BARTLETT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you Chairman Bonner, members of your committee; I am happy to be in these elevated precincts. Most of what I know concerning the subject to be discussed this morning and the merchant marine was acquired during my 14 years' service as a member of this committee when I was delegate in Congress from Alaska. I was a pupil of Judge Bland and also your pupil, Chairman Bonner, and I enjoyed my service on this committee very much, so much, in fact, that almost automatically on the other side of the Capitol I went to the Commerce Committee. I might add I also served under Mr. Weichel.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, the introduction of this bill, S. 1988, and the companion bills offered in the House of Representatives, and the need for early enactment of one of them, relates directly to the recent appearance of foreign fishing fleetsprimarily Russian, Japanese, and more recently Cuban-off the coast of the United States. Five years ago no large foreign fishing fleets operated off the U.S. coast, with the exception of the Bering Sea.

The picture has drastically changed since then. Last year there were over 200 large, modern foreign fishing vessels off our Atlantic Coast while at the same time approximately 300 foreign vessels were in Alaska waters, including the Gulf of Alaska, operating along both coasts at times within 15 miles or less of the mainland. Not infrequently foreign fishing vessels strayed within our territorial waters. These waters are reserved for the exclusive use of our own fishermen and are subject to the fishery regulations of our States.

Alaska has been the State hardest hit by these violations. During the last 8 months, 16 foreign vessels have been officially sighted by the U.S. Navy or Coast Guard in territorial waters within our 3-mile limit off Alaska. My guess is that there have been numerous unreported instances also. The latest known incident occurred on January 17 of this year, approximately 2 weeks before the four Cuban vessels were found in our territorial waters off Dry Tortugas. The recent Alaska incident involved a Soviet fishing vessel sighted with 2 miles

of Attu by a Navy aircraft. Apparently there is something of interest in the area since on the 27th of November last year, the Navy reported a Soviet fishing vessel in the same area, again within 2 miles of our coast. The Navy reported at that time the trawler's actions indicated a willful violation of our territorial waters.

Now, in existing circumstances, we are without defense of any kind. Today there is no provision in the U.S. law of any kind to prevent, effectively, fishing in our territorial waters by foreigners.

When foreign fishing vessels enter those waters they do so illegally. But there is no penalty whatsoever-none-which they confront if they violate our national sovereignty 100 times a day by drifting back and forth across the limit of the territorial sea.

The Coast Guard may escort such vessels beyond the 3-mile limit and does when it discovers them too close to our line of coast. But in effect the Coast Guard can only say to the master of the offending ship: "Please go away."

In law there is no provision for the seizure or forfeiture of these vessels or their cargoes or for any penalties against the fficers and

crew.

The present law, 46 U.S.C. 251, only in the most general and really vague terms gives to U.S. vessels exclusive privilege of fishing within our territorial waters by providing that they shall be exclusively for "vessels employed in the coasting trade or fisheries." Actually, the fact is that existing law is so vague that one has no clear meaning of what is intended after reading it. The purpose of S. 1988, and the companion bills in the House, is to make it clearly unlawful for any foreign vessels to fish in the U.S. territorial waters or to take Continental Shelf fishery resources which belong to the United States. In addition to making these actions unlawful the bill provides appropriate penalties for violators and establishes the necessary enforcement machinery.

I believe, and this is important, the wording of the bill makes it quite clear that the legislation itself establishes no new claim of jurisdiction. The purpose of the bill is simply to provide for effective enforcement of any claims made by the United States with respect to the scope of its territorial waters and with respect to Continental Shelf fishery resources which belong to the United States. The bill does not define, does not attempt to define, either the territorial waters of the United States or any fishery zone nor does the bill identify what particular fishery resources of the Continental Shelf appertain or belong to the United States. These claims have been established or in the near future will be established by international agreement or by other executive action.

The United States has recognized the 3-mile limit as the scope of its territorial waters since Thomas Jefferson took that position in 1793. If later, if in the future the United States extends its jurisdiction on the high seas as numerous other nations recently have, the penalties provided in the bill would continue to apply.

There are two possible bases under which the United States may claim fishery resources of the Continental Shelf. The first possible claim is based on the Submerged Lands Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Act of 1953. This legislation extended U.S. jurisdiction over the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil of the Continental Shelf. Natural resources were defined to include marine animals.

On the basis of this extension of jurisdiction the President of the United States, in March of 1960, issued an executive proclamation, Proclamation No. 3339, claiming jurisdiction over a living coral reef and its associated marine life on the Continental Shelf beyond the 3mile limit off Florida. The Executive has not to my knowledge proceeded pursuant to this legislation to extend the U.S. jurisdiction over any other living resource of the shelf. The wording of the bill, however, is sufficiently broad to prohibit any foreign vessel from taking the marine resources protected by the executive proclamation and will permit a further interpretation of the Outer Continental Shelf Act and the Submerged Lands Act to include additional living resources of the Continental Shelf.

The second basis of claim over resources of the Continental Shelf rests on the Convention on the Continental Shelf signed in Geneva in 1958 as part of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. This convention has been ratified by the United States and by 20 other nations. It must be ratified by only one additional nation before it becomes effective. Since legislation is pending in Britain and in West Germany to ratify the convention, it would appear that the convention will become effective within the next few months, at the latest.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me for interrupting. What is the limit on the convention provisions

Senator BARTLETT. In respect to territorial waters?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator BARTLETT. It makes no change.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, some countries claim, for instance Peru, way out in the ocean.

Senator BARTLETT. This is true.

The CHAIRMAN. I am asking if the Geneva convention provided for any specified distance?

Senator BARTLETT. No; an effort was made there to

The CHAIRMAN. Define territorial waters.

Senator BARTLETT. Yes; an effort was made at the Geneva convention to extend the territorial limits to 6 miles with an additional 6 miles for a fishery zone. This failed by a very, very narrow margin.

Now, in respect to the Continental Shelf provision, action was taken there which will be enforced and effective after one additional nation agrees to the convention, and that provides, and I quote here from article 1:

For the purpose of these articles the term "Continental Shelf" is used as referring (a) to the seabed and the subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea to a depth of 200 meters or beyond that limit to where the depth of the superadjacent waters admits the exploitation of the national resources of the side areas; (b) to the seabed subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands.

In more specific answer to your query, Mr. Chairman, it is true that many nations unilaterally and at an accelerated rate have been acting to extend the limit of their territorial seas and their fishing zones. As you said, some of the South American nations are claiming as much as 200 miles and as I will point out here soon in my statement, other nations are moving in this direction also.

The CHAIRMAN. You mentioned the Continental Shelf, that would be not uniform; it would be more distant in one place than another, would it not?

Senator BARTLETT. Yes; this is true, because the Continental Shelf. itself is. It has varying width but its precise definition by way of international agreement would be incorporated in the provisions which I just read from Geneva, article 1. That would be out to a depth of 200 meters.

The CHAIRMAN. I am just simply trying to determine what we mean in this bill as to the distance from the shoreline. not be uniform?

Senator BARTLETT. It would probably never be uniform

It would

The CHAIRMAN. In some place it might run out 25 miles, in other places it might be narrower?

Senator BARTLETT. True.

The CHAIRMAN. Well then, how do you determine that?

Senator BARTLETT. I will assume that the United States will want to, since it is a signatory, conform to the Geneva convention and if so it will follow precisely the language which I quoted and that is it is regarded as Continental Shelf until a depth of 200 meters is reached or, quoting again—

beyond that limit to where the depth of the superadjacent waters admits the exploitation of the natural resources of the said waters.

I think we can assume for all practical purposes the 200-meter figure and I would judge, as I said, that we would follow this very strictly because we, as a nation, like to do these things in unison with other maritime nations whenever possible rather than act unilaterally. The CHAIRMAN. I take it this was your bill in the Senate, was it not? Senator BARTLETT. That is right.

Increasingly it has occurred to me that there is a necessity for imposing penalties for these intrusions upon our territorial waters. I was rather shocked, as many others were, to discover belatedly it is true, that there were no penalties existing.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the experience we had in Cuba recently. Senator BARTLETT. Yes. If Florida did not have a State

The CHAIRMAN. I mean in Florida.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, with the Cuban vessels?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator BARTLETT. If Florida did not have a State law, and I believe it is the only one or one of the few that does, providing penalties, I do not know of any means, any law under which the Cuban vessels might have been seized.

The CHAIRMAN. May I congratulate you for introducing this bill and passing it in the Senate and I want you to know that the recent incident in Florida made this acute and brought it vividly to the attention of the Chair and this committee and therefore we arranged these hearings right away.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you. I think it becomes more obvious every day that we need legislation which will not be punitive, that is not intended in that vein.

The CHAIRMAN. Had you finished your general statement?

Senator BARTLETT. No, I have some more if you would care to hear

me.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you have pretty well summed it up unless there is something in there that is very pertinent to the subject.

Senator BARTLETT. Every last word is extraordinarily pertinent, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I want the witness to know, I realize that all he is saying is pertinent to the subject, but to point out more vividly the necessity for the rapid passage of this bill.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, I realize that every member of the committee will inspect this statement thoroughly down to every comma and semicolon, and I urge each one to do that, so I will not, realizing there are many witnesses to follow me, seek to read the statement in complete

text.

I would like to ask permission, first, to include as part of my state

ment

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to include all your statement.

Senator BARTLETT. There is a table appended showing foreign violations of Alaska territorial waters.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, do you want to read those in particular at this time?

Senator BARTLETT. Beg your pardon?

The CHAIRMAN. The violations of the Alaskan waters.

Senator BARTLETT. If they can just be included with my statement. The CHAIRMAN. You have spoken of them heretofore. Is there any other thing, that is what I meant, any flagrant violation other than what you have already pointed out?

Senator BARTLETT. Well, we think there have been deliberate violations. Most recently in Florida waters, the Atlantic coast

The CHAIRMAN. I mean your Alaskan waters?

Senator BARTLETT. Yes; those two I mentioned. One I mentioned was January 17 of this year. We had considerable difficulty, the State government did, with Japanese vessels a year or so ago. I would like also to have permission to submit a letter written by Walter Kirkness, commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to Mr. Starlund, director of the Washington State Department of Fisheries, referring to these hearings and endorsing this legislation. The CHAIRMAN. Is there some particular fact-we are going to put it in the record, but is there some particular fact you would like to point out?

Senator BARTLETT. I cannot answer that precisely because the truth is, Mr. Chairman, that this letter came only this morning and I looked at it only sufficiently to make sure that it endorsed the bill rather than opposed it.

And then brought it over here with the idea of asking permission to put it in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. I remember a Senator from my State once, he was walking on the Senate floor and a man offered him a speech and he made it and the papers quoted it. He said, my gosh, I wish I had read it before.

Senator BARTLETT. I read this sufficiently to be sure he was for the legislation and since he is an informed man I am confident that which he has to say will make a contribution to our education on this subject.

Likewise a telegram which came to me this morning endorsing the legislation from Don Dickey, general manager of the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce.

30-021-64-3