Mr. LENNON. Suppose they were not signatories to this convention that we are talking about, like Russia is not? Japan is, I believe. Are they?

Senator BARTLETT. The other way around-Russia is and Japan is not.

Mr. LENNON. They are not?

Senator BARTLETT. Right.

Mr. LENNON. Then Russia and Japan would have fished in this 12-mile limit for a sufficient length of time for them to claim that they have traditionally fished there and they can come in and fish in this 12-mile zone, could they not?

Senator BARTLETT. Precisely, that is one reason I feel we have to move not with all reasonable speed, but rapidly, to assert our rights, for they are such, in these areas and what rights we would have under the Geneva Convention over the Continental Shelf, because as you say, if we do not, then these other nations can claim historic privileges.

Mr. LENNON. I read further from your statement in the following

sentence:

sincerely hope that the President can make the necessary arrangements to act and establish a 12-mile fishery conservation zone before these resources would have been traditionally fished by Russia, Cuba, or any other foreign nation.

So I wonder why you feel we have to wait a year before we ask the President to act.

Senator BARTLETT. I would hope it would be much sooner. I do see the complications that face the State Department, the Interior Department, in respect to the several different fisheries-shrimp and tuna, for example, might be adversely affected-unless suitable arrangements are made in a diplomatic way with other nations. I think that it is rather important that we give the executive branch a few more months, but no more, I would say.

Mr. LENNON. They even oppose your part of the bill which would extend this protection to the resources on the Continental Shelf. They want that stricken out of the bill, do they not?

Senator BARTLETT. They did. I think probably their attitude on that has altered. I hope.

Mr. LENNON. Not in their most recent report.

Senator BARTLETT. They still want it stricken in the February 18. report?

Mr. LENNON. That is my understanding.

Mr. PELLY. The language is very soft if the gentleman would yield. The report said the committee may wish to delete the language. That is soft language.

Mr. LENNON. That is his language. Mr. Pelly, not the Department's language.

Mr. PELLY. The Department of Interior report uses that language. Senator BARTLETT. I must confess after being so advised that I am profoundly amazed and shocked.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you very much, I think we are moving in the right direction, I hope.

Mr. GOODLING. Senator, just one question.

You say that these foreign fleets are fishing within the Gulf of Alaska. Can they fish in the Gulf of Alaska anywhere legally?

Senator BARTLETT. So long as they don't come within our territorial waters, they can, under international law.

Mr. GOODLING. One other question: In the title of your bill you say, "other than nationals or inhabitants of the United States."

How do you define those two words?

Senator BARTLETT. Just a moment, please.

Mr. GOODLING. That is in the title of your bill.

Senator BARTLETT. I shall answer that by saying that the words mean a U.S. citizen or person who is legally a resident of the United States.

Mr. HAGEN. Would the gentleman yield at that point?

Mr. GOODLING. Yes.

Mr. HAGEN. I think that preamble originally conformed to the original bill but it really does not conform to the language that the Senate passed, which refers to vessels rather than persons.

Senator BARTLETT. I think you are right.

Mr. GOODLING. Would not a national be an inhabitant of the United States?

Senator BARTLETT. I think you could have both there, but I do believe that this suggestion is a good one and it ought to go beyond persons and include vessels.

Mr. GOODLING. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you. I did not intend to take up so much of your time.

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate your vast knowledge on this subject. Senator BARTLETT. I have a great interest.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers of Florida.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator, I just wanted to make a few remarks and maybe a question or two.

I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation, and I share your concern greatly. As I understand, you feel the situation is now, that it is already policy to declare this against the law but there are no penalties?

Senator BARTLETT. Right.

Mr. ROGERS. Now, we have just had an experience, and I will not get into this because I will testify if I may, Mr. Chairman, shortly, but I think it is pointed up by the Cuban vessels coming in and I would agree with your statement that this is not just an isolated incident but we are having this all up and down thec oast.

In fact, already this year there have been two Russian trawlers, which is a little early for Russian trawlers, to appear off the coast of Florida, one of which has been within the territorial limits of this Government.

So, I share your concern and I am very hopeful that we can pass this legislation.

Senator BARTLETT. I want to congratulate you for the strong, aggressive leadership you have shown in this area.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you.

Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Senator one question? I am sure the Chair did not intend to cut me off.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, pardon.

Mr. DOWNING. Senator, I want to compliment you, too.
Senator BARTLETT. Thank you.

Mr. DOWNING. I am hopeful this amendment which was put on can be stricken, but in the event it is not stricken, is it your interpretation that if a State said "No" to an applicant then that would effectively stop the application?

Senator BARTLETT. Positively, that is my understanding.
Mr. DOWNING. That is your understanding?

Senator BARTLETT. Right.

Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to filibuster with the Senator here, but I want to ask one question.

I assume you will probably want to revise and extend your remarks and you have not seen this report of the Secretary of the Interior? Senator BARTLETT. No.

Mr. HAGEN. But he has an extensive, very lengthy substitute for this Senate amendment which appears at the top of page 2 and involves the Secretary of Defense and the Treasury Department and I wonder if you would read that and when you revise your remarks comment whether you are in favor of this substitute?

Senator BARTLETT. I will be glad to.

Mr. HAGEN. Thank you.

Senator BARTLETT. I might add, though, if I gage the temper of this committee correctly, it will be an exercise in futility.

Mr. HAGEN. The substitute does not refer to landing; it just refers to right to fish, it does not refer to landing.

Senator BARTLETT. I will be glad to comment.

Mr. GROVER. Mr. Chairman, may I just compliment the Senator, in a day when we appear to have abandoned the Monroe Doctrine, it is good to see the Bartlett doctrine.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We have not all together forgotten the Monroe Doctrine. There are problems down there that maybe the Monroe Doctrine did not anticipate.

Thank you, Senator."

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Your complete statement will be included in the record at this point, along with the telegram and letter you requested. (The material mentioned follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. E. L. (BOB) BARTLETT, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

The introduction of this bill, S. 1988, and the need for its early enactment are related directly to the recent appearance of foreign fishing fleets-primarily 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 within 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 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 discoveries 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 officers 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 up to the limit of 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 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 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 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 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 3-mile 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 Germany to ratify the convention, it would appear that the convention will become effective within the next few months.

On the basis of this convention the United States will gain exclusive jurisdiction over the fishery resources of the Continental Shelf as defined in the convention. Article 2(4) of the convention defines these resources as those living organisms of the sedentary species which at their harvestable stage are immobile or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed. This I understand very clearly includes oysters, clams, and crawling crabs, such as the Alaska king crab and the dungeness crab. If this bill becomes law and the Convention on the Continental Shelf becomes effective, the penalty provision of the bill would apply to any violations of our claims pursuant to the convention as well as claims under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

The Continental Shelf is that submerged portion of our continent that has been overlapped by the oceans. Along the Atlantic coast the maximum distance from the shore to the outer edge of the shelf is 250 miles and the average distance is 70 miles. In the Gulf of Mexico the maximum distance is 200 miles and the average is about 93 miles. The area off Alaska is estimated to contain 600,000 square miles, an area almost as large as Alaska itself.

S. 1988 provides that the penalties apply unless otherwise provided by an international agreement or unless a license has been issued by the Secretary of the Treasury after the certification by the Secretary of the Interior and any State affected that such permission was in the national interest. Concern has been expressed over the provision authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a license with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior and any State affected. Although I believe adequate protection is assured by the requirement that both State and Federal officials concur, the committee may wish to look again at the need for this exception and as to the adequacy of the protection afforded.

This legislation is similar to statutes found in other coastal nations. The closest example is the Canadian Coastal Fisheries Protection Act passed in 1953. However, in certain respects S. 1988 is not as severe as the Canadian statute. The penalties in the Canadian act carry a fine of $25,000 or imprisonment for a term of 2 years, whereas S. 1988 places a limit of $10,000 fine and imprisonment of 1 year. Only a vessel and the master or other person in charge of the vessel would be subject to the penalty under S. 1988. This is in contrast to the Canadian act which under certain circumstances would impose a penalty upon any person aboard the foreign vessel.

In considering the need for this legislation most fishermen have indicated to me that they were amazed that there is no penalty or provision for the seizure of foreign fishing vessels operating in our territorial waters today. Although I, too, was amazed to learn this fact, I believe it is understandable in light of the situation we faced only a few years ago. Two years ago the U.S. fishermen were accustomed to seeing Soviet fishing vessels only in the North Atlantic and in the Bering Sea. But in the summer of 1962 the situation began to change swiftly. During that summer, for the first time, Soviet vessels entered the Gulf of Alaska with well over 100 vessels, some of which were engaged intentionally or otherwise in destroying our crab gear close to Kodiak. The Russian fleet continued along the southern coast of Alaska and within 30 miles of Cordova. Later that summer, several foreign fishing vessels were sighted as far south as Washington State and Oregon. During that same time, the summer of 1962, a parallel advance was being made in the Atlantic. As many as 160 Soviet vessels were sighted off the Atlantic coast. The Soviet vessels were reported off the Middle Atlantic States and several moved along the coast of the Carolinas and as far south as Florida.

In the early part of last year our consulate in Vera Cruz reported that several Soviet vessels had been operating in the Gulf of Mexico, using the port of Vera Cruz for supplies.

In the summer of 1963 this effort was intensified. By May of last year there were 140 Japanese vessels operating off Alaska, primarily along an area 15 to 20 miles north of the Aleutian Islands and from 20 to 60 miles south of Kodiak. In addition, there were 40 Russian vessels operating in the Bering Sea and in the Gulf of Alaska.

In June of last year the Japanese fleet of approximately 140 vessels continued their operations. The number of Russian vessels increased to 60, operating primarily off Kodiak and within 40 to 60 miles of Bristol Bay.