Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

ment of the Navy, and the Department of the Treasury. The Governor and the Legislature of Alaska have also urged passage of legislation such as this, and the support of the fishing industry on all our coasts has been forthcoming. In voicing my support, I would like to say that I have no objection to any of the Senate amendments embodied in S. 1988 as it passed the Senate, except the provision which would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to license fishing by foreign vessels within our territorial waters.

The CHAIRMAN. Everybody seems agreed on that.

Mr. RIVERS. I agree to that.

In support of this legislation I submit the following points:

(a) The need for this legislation is urgent because during the past summer there have been numerous incidents off both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts in which Russian and Japanese vessels have engaged either in fishing activities within our territorial waters or exploited resources of our Continental Shelf; for example, in addition to trawling for king crab in international waters of the Continental Shelf near Kodiak Island, Russians navigating fleets of modern fast vessels have ruthlessly moved through waters already occupied by Alaskan fishermen and carelessly or deliberately damaged or destroyed their gear, consisting of crab pots marked with buoys. This, of course, has created an explosive situation and threatens the depletion of the great Alaska king crab fishery upon our Continental Shelf, concurrently with driving Alaskans from one of their traditional fishing grounds and thereby-unless brought to a stop-ruining their means of earning a livelihood.

(b) Our Government presently lacks statutory authority to protect both our territorial waters within the 3-mile limit and resources upon the Continental Shelf. At present, encroachments by foreign vessels within our 3-mile limit can be met only by boarding and a polite request to leave. I suggest it is high time that the Congress define violations and prescribe the scope of penalties and authorize seizures and forfeitures in regard to encroachments by foreign vessels within our territorial waters, allowing, of course, for innocent passage as usually recognized.

(c) The bill does not define "territorial waters," thereby leaving it open for our Government to follow the lead of Canada in establishing a 12-mile limit with straight baselines for fishing purposes. As regards fishing, this would take the place of our present 3-mile limit, and thereby match the 12-mile limit imposed and enforced by the Soviet Union.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me interrupt you there.

Mr. RIVERS. Surely, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. With the reciprocity between Canada and the United States in this area, there is a limitation on the type and kind of fishing when our boats and their boats come into these waters which is different from that which exists now in regards to the Russian fleet which takes out everything.

Mr. KEITH. That is correct. The Russians, I believe, enforce the 12-mile limit uniformly around their coastline and have no problem as Canada would with our country of so-called historic rights.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean, there is some understanding about what would be done when foreign flags come into this 12-mile limit of Canada?

Mr. KEITH. There is some understanding?

The CHAIRMAN. As to the limitation on fishing would be?

Mr. KEITH. Yes, there is, I believe.

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remark on your question. Mr. PELLY. I think it is under negotiation with Canada now.

Mr. RIVERS. I would like to subscribe to that.

The Canadians, in announcing they are going to extend the fishing zone to a 12-mile limit, have said they want to negotiate with the United States the exchanges in connection with which American fishermen would fish within their 12-mile limit and in connection with which the Canadian fishermen would fish in some of our waters between the 3- and 12-mile limit based on historical fishing by Canadians. Now, this would have to be reciprocally arranged.

The CHAIRMAN. The point I merely make is there has been no negotiation or anything else with the foreign fleets now that come into our territorial waters and interfere with the reproduction of fish, and so forth.

Mr. RIVERS. The 3-mile limit holds off foreign vessels in too limited area. Actually most of the foreign vessels that we can discover have not been encroaching within our 3-mile limit. Most of them have been exploiting the resources immediately outside the 3-mile limit and upon our Continental Shelf and disregarding our conservation requirements and that sort of thing. It is very damaging and I think we have to do something about this and I subscribe to the idea that we should proceed to follow Canada's lead with appropriate adjustments between Canada and the United States in setting up 12-mile fishing zones. Mr. PELLY. Could I ask a question?

Mr. RIVERS. Yes.

Mr. PELLY. In connection with the Alaska statehood legislation with which you are quite familiar, was there any ceding of any jurisdiction over Continental Shelf by the U.S. Federal authority to the State authority? Does the Governor of Alaska have any jurisdiction over the Continental Shelf outside the 3-mile limit?

Mr. RIVERS. No, not at all. The State has jurisdiction and management of the fisheries, sports and commercial, within the 3-mile limit and those are the territorial waters

Mr. PELLY. Would you agree with me that the proposal that has been made by the Department of the Interior, if you have read this report

Mr. RIVERS. I read it this morning.

Mr. PELLY. Would the report take away from the States any veto power and give all authority to the Federal Government?

Mr. RIVERS. I read it hurriedly but that was my impression.

The State of Alaska's position is it does have complete resource jurisdiction within the 3-mile limit, but not beyond the 3-mile limit. We have never challenged that.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rivers, it is 12. The committee will have to recess now. If you desire to, come back in the morning. Is there any other statement you care to make now?

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I think I would. There are a few points on the last two pages of my statement and I would be willing to answer more questions if anyone were to ask me.

The CHAIRMAN. We will meet at 10 tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12 the committee adjourned until 10 a.m. February 20, 1964.)

FISHING IN U.S. TERRITORIAL WATERS

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1964

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 219, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Herbert C. Bonner (chairman of the committee) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Rivers, there was some further statement you wished to make. STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH J. RIVERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA-Resumed

Mr. RIVERS. My statement is before you and I will start reading it at the top of

The CHAIRMAN. Your full statement will be put in the record.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Bonner.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH J. RIVERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF ALASKA

Mr. Chairman, I am one of many who appreciate the scheduling of these hearings upon this important legislation so early in this session of the 88th Congress, and wish to thank you and the other members of this distinguished committee for the opportunity to be heard in favor of the legislation under consideration. I refer to S. 1988, authored and introduced in the Senate by the senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Bartlett, and cosponsored by nine other Senators, including the senior Senator from the State of Washington, Mr. Magnuson, who has stated the purpose of S. 1988 to be as follows: "First to protect our territorial waters from encroachment by foreign fishing vessels; and second, to preserve our marine resources on or attached to the Continental Shelf." May I add that this legislation also defines violations and prescribes penalties.

I wish to also mention companion measures which have been introduced in the House and are also subject to these hearings. I refer to my bill, H.R. 7954; the bill introduced by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keith, H.R. 8296; and the bill introduced by our distinguished colleague from Florida, Mr. Rogers, H.R. 9957.

Except for amendments adopted in the Senate, my bill and Mr. Keith's bill are identical to S. 1988. As I understand it, Mr. Rogers' bill, which was introduced since S. 1988 passed the Senate, coincides with the amended version of the Senate bill. I am gratified at the widespread support which this legislation is receiving. From the executive branch I note that endorsements have been received from the Department of State, the Department of the Interior, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Treasury. The Governor and the Legislature of Alaska have also urged passage of legislation such as this, and the support of the fishing industry on all our coasts has been forthcoming. In voicing my support, I would like to say that I have no objection to any of the Senate amendments embodied in S. 1988 as it passed the Senate, except the provision which would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to license fishing by foreign vessels within our territorial waters.

65

In support of this legislation I submit the following points:

(a) The need for this legislation is urgent because during the past summer there have been numerous incidents off both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts in which Russian and Japanese vessels have engaged in fishing activities within our territorial waters or exploited resources of our Continental Shelf; for example, in addition to trawling for king crab in international waters of the Continental Shelf near Kodiak Island, Russians navigating fleets of modern, fast vessels have ruthlessly moved through waters already occupied by Alaskan fishermen and carelessly or deliberately damaged or destroyed their gear, consisting of crab pots marked with buoys. This, of course, has created an explosive situation and threatens the depletion of the great Alaska king crab fishery upon our Continental Shelf, concurrently with driving Alaskans from one of their traditional fishing grounds and thereby-unless brought to a stop-ruining their means of earning a livelihood.

(b) Our Government presently lacks statutory authority to protect both our territorial waters within the 3-mile limit and resources upon the Continental Shelf. At present, encroachments by foreign vessels within our 3-mile limit can be met only by boarding and a polite request to leave. I suggest it is high time that the Congress define violations and prescribe the scope of penalties and authorize seizures and forfeitures in regard to encroachments by foreign vessels within our territorial waters, allowing, of course, for innocent passage as usually recognized.

(c) The bill does not define "territorial waters," thereby leaving it open for our Government to follow the lead of Canada in establishing a 12-mile limit with straight baselines for fishing purposes. As regards fishing, this would take the place of our present 3-mile limit, and thereby match the 12-mile limit imposed and enforced by the Soviet Union.

(d) There are two bases upon which the United States may claim the resources upon or attached to our Continental Shelf-first, pursuant to the provisions of the 1953 Submerged Lands Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Act, and, second, provisions found in the International Convention on the Continental Shelf entered into at Geneva in 1958, which convention will take effect upon the ratification of one more nation. Twenty-one nations have thus far signed this convention, including the Soviet Union and the United States. In this regard, I might say I am advised the State Department does not consider that unilateral action by the United States in claiming resources of the Continental Shelf would be either adequate or advisable, and that the United States should wait for one more ratification needed to put into effect the International Convention on the Continental Shelf. The State Department tells me that the desired ratification by one more nation is expected "presently." Thereafter the President would issue a proclamation asserting the claim of the United States to the crabs and other products of the Continental Shelf.

The significance of what I am saying stems from the fact that this legislation would be prospective and would be available, if enacted now, as the law of the land for enforcing our claim to the products of the Continental Shelf as soon as the referenced international convention becomes effective and our claim declared.

In conclusion, I emphasize the triple importance of this legislation as follows: First, it is needed as legal implementation for accomplishment by our Government of protection of our territorial waters; second, its undefined reference to territorial waters gives it a prospective effect as regards all the waters within a 12-mile fishing zone along our coasts as soon as such a zone is established; and, third, it would be available for enforcing our claim to the products of the Continental Shelf as soon as that claim is asserted.

For these reasons I urge favorable action upon this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for your kind attention.

Mr. RIVERS. I will carry out mostly the conclusion. I will start reading the first paragraph on page 3, in which I say there are two bases upon which the United States may claim the resources upon or attached to our Continental Shelf-first, pursuant to the provisions of the 1953 Submerged Lands Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Act, and, second, provisions found in the International Convention on the Continental Shelf entered into at Geneva in 1958, which conven

tion will take effect upon the ratification of one more nation. Twentyone nations and Senator Bartlett mentioned this, 21 nations have thus far signed this convention, including the Soviet Union and the United States. In this regard, I might say I am advised the State Department does not consider that unilateral action by the United States in claiming resources of the Continental Shelf would be either adequate or advisable, and that the United States should wait for the one more ratification needed to put into effect the International Convention on the Continental Shelf. The State Department tells me that the desired ratification by one more nation is expected "presently." And I use the word "presently" in quotes, whatever that means. Thereafter, the President would issue a proclamation asserting the claim of the United States to the crabs and other products of the Continental Shelf.

The significance of what I am saying stems from the fact that this legislation would be prospective, legally speaking, and would be available, if enacted now, as the law of the land for enforcing our claim to the products of the Continental Shelf as soon as the referenced international convention becomes effective and our claim declared.

In conclusion, I emphasize the triple importance of this legislation as follows:

First, it is needed as legal implementation for accomplishment by our Government of protection of our territorial waters; second, its undefined reference to territorial waters gives it a prospective effect as regards all the waters within a 12-mile fishing zone along our coasts as soon as such zone is established; and, third, it would be available for enforcing our claim to the products of the Continental Shelf as soon as that claim is asserted. That would not be asserted, apparently, under the reference policy until that one more nation signs that convention.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, and in line with many of the supporting statements made by other witnesses, I urge that favorable action be taken upon this legislation, and I thank you and the members of the committee for your attention.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rivers.

The next witness is our colleague from Florida, Mr. Fuqua.

STATEMENT OF HON. DON FUQUA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. FUQUA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to speak before your committee concerning S. 1988. This legislation regards a matter which I have been giving very serious thought and for which I have much concern.

We of the United States have always tried to do our best in preserving the natural resources of our country. We have established laws and regulations which are used by this Government in protecting our natural resources, seeing that they are not misused and in some way providing meaures which will even help to increase them. I certainly feel that the fishing industry needs concrete protection of the natural resource from which they receive their livelihood. They are having to compete with an intrusion from a foreign source which has little repect for those who are trying to make a living from our own fishery resource. We have tried to protect this resource in our own

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »