the Senate had refused to accept the original report of the managers for other reasons, I did everything in my power to have the language modified to permit the Coast Guard administrative discretion. The language was subsequently changed to that as set out in your letter. Had this not been done the Coast Guard could only have met the original congressional direction by redeploying vessels from other areas, including the Pacific coast. I regret that you feel that my replies to any of the questions asked were equivocating, or that the Coast Guard has a reputation with you or your associates for avoiding new duties. The Coast Guard welcomes new duties when properly directed by Congress. However, in discharging its duties the Coast Guard tries to give the maximum service for the money appropriated to it, and therefore does not have excess facilities that can be readily diverted to new and unplanned for undertakings. Finally, let me say that the obtaining of the appropriation would in no way have changed the situation with respect to the maintenance of the patrol during the next few months. Throughout the whole matter it was pointed out that the vessels contemplated by the appropriation would not be available for at least 18 months, and during this period the Coast Guard could not, with the facilities available to it, continually maintain two patrols in the lower Gulf of Mexico without redeploying vessels from other areas, thus depriving those areas of their accustomed and needed protection. In closing, may I say that, just as the fishing industry is proud of the trust enjoyed by it in Congress, so, too, is the Coast Guard proud of the trust that Congress reposes in it. So long as I have anything to do with the service, it will be my aim to give to any congressional inquiry the complete facts to the best of my ability. As you will note, copies of this letter are being distributed to those Members of Congress to whom you sent copies of your letter. I would appreciate it if you would furnish me with a list of those members of your colleagues in the fishing industry to whom you provided copies of your letter in order that they also may be furnished with copies of my letter. Sincerely yours, A. C. RICHMOND, Mr. FELANDO. Thank you very much for the opportunity. The CHAIRMAN. The committee is adjourned until next Tuesday at 10. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene Tuesday, February 25, 1964, at 10 a.m.) FISHING IN U.S. TERRITORIAL WATERS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1964 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 219, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Herbert C. Bonner (chairman of the committee) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The witness this morning is the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Adm. Edwin J. Roland, accompanied by Capt. G. R. Reynolds. You may proceed, Admiral. STATEMENT OF ADM. EDWIN J. ROLAND, THE COMMANDANT, ACCOMPANIED BY CAPT. G. R. REYNOLDS, CHIEF, PORT SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, U.S. COAST GUARD Admiral ROLAND. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before your committee to discuss the position of the Treasury Department on Senate Act 1988 which is designed to protect U.S. fisheries from foreign exploitation. There is a pressing need for this legislation. The Coast Guard assists in the enforcement of most of the important U.S. fisheries conservation statutes and treaties. However, when we try to protect the fisheries inside the U.S. territorial seas from alien encroachment our hands are tied. A few marine species are protected by special statutes, but there is no effective law having broad application. From the earliest times, the American fisheries have been restricted to vessels of the United States. Foreign vessels are also prevented from landing fish in the United States which they have caught on the high seas or which are transferred from other vessels on the high seas. Present law in this area is codified as section 251, title 46, United States Code. However, this law affords little protection to our resources, since it provides no penalty and foreign vessels can violate it with impunity. The Treasury Department does not consider it an equivalent to the proposed legislation, which addresses itself directly to the offense of poaching upon the fishery resources of the United States. The Treasury Department believes that S. 1988, with the penalties provided, will be an excellent tool for preventing foreign fishing in U.S. waters. The urgent need for such a tool was recently demonstrated when the Coast Guard apprehended four Cuban vessels fishing in U.S. waters off Dry Tortugas. Although this was a flagrant violation of 46 U.S.C. 251, actually admitted by two of the Cuban 111 captains, investigation revealed no means by which a Federal penalty could be applied. Several incidents of illegal foreign fishing in U.S. waters off Alaska during 1963 show that the Dry Tortugas incident is not an isolated one and emphasize the need for a comprehensive Federal law with teeth. The Treasury Department proposes two minor technical changes in the act. The first would change section 2(c) to bring the seizure and condemnation features of the bill into accord with the customs laws on this subject. The second would change section 3 (a) to vest responsibility for enforcement in the Secretaries of Treasury and Interior rather than in the Coast Guard, Customs Bureau, and Department of Interior. These changes are explained in more detail in the Treasury Department report on the act. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to my statement at this point that the Treasury report actually recommends four changes. I wanted to emphasize these two as being very important. The Department believes that inclusion in the bill of the provisions relating to the fishery resources of the Continental Shelf may be premature. We understand these provisions may create problems of enforcement on the high seas which cannot immediately be resolved. The Department of State would be a more appropriate agency to comment on this. Because of the urgent need for the measures in the act relating to the territorial seas, Congress might consider it advisable to enact these measures now and defer acting on those relating to the Continental Shelf until a later date. Should Congress choose to return the provisions relating to the Continental Shelf, we believe it would be advantageous to rewrite the section dealing with the fishery resources appertaining to the United States to embrace the language of the Convention on the Continental Shelf (Geneva 1958). We also believe that the act should designate an officer of the Federal Government, most appropriately the Secretary of the Interior, to determine what species of marine life would qualify under the act. We believe that in the absence of such a determination prosecution of violators would be difficult. Should this act become law, I must emphasize that the Coast Guard will not be able to start enforcing the Continental Shelf provisions immediately. Enforcement will have to wait until the species of marine life appertaining to the United States have been identified and until the problems of enforcement on the high seas have been resolved. In conclusion, I should like to state that although we have reservations about the timing of the Continental Shelf provisions of S. 1988, we strongly support its purpose and recommend its early enactment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tollefson. Mr. TOLLEFSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The other departments, especially the State Department, have expressed concern over the Continental Shelf application of this legislation. This is a rather serious concern, is it not? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir; it is for the reason that to us it is a new field of enforcement in which we have not been engaged before. Enforcement on the high seas is likely to cause some entanglements if it is not carefully thought out beforehand. This is the reason why we suggest that, if the Continental Shelf provision is kept in this act, the language of the convention be included so as to give us a tool that we can use uniformly. Mr. TOLLEFSON. This was a matter into which I inquired last week at the hearings: What about the nations that are not signatories to the convention? You would have some real problems there, would you not? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir. Mr. TOLLEFSON. As a matter of curiosity, how far does the Continental Shelf extend out from Alaska if we use the convention definition of 200 meters of water depth above it? Admiral ROLAND. Well, it varies. One of the witnesses who spoke here the other day said in some places it extends a hundred miles or more and in some places it is inside the 3-mile limit. I haven't looked into this matter but I am sure that both of those extremities are correct. Mr. TOLLEFSON. So that there would be an extensive area to patrol in those places where the Continental Shelf might run out 100 miles? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir. Mr. TOLLEFSON. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lennon. Mr. LENNON. Admiral, in the hearings last week, the Department of the Interior seemed to insist upon the right of recreational fishing by foreign vessels within our territorial waters of 3 miles. They likewise insisted upon the research fishing within our territorial waters of 3 miles by foreign vessels and also seemed to insist upon commercial fishing within our traditional 3 mile limit, all, of course, licensed. If any one of these categories were used, either recreation or research or commercial, how would that affect the enforcement by the Treasury Department? Admiral ROLAND. I don't think it would have a serious effect. In any case, if we are investigating a vessel, we would board it and inspect its documents and if indicated we would search the vessel. If we were convinced that it was a research or recreation vessel or, if it was evident that it had a license granted under the terms of this bill as it now stands, we would simply leave. Mr. LENNON. But it would require the boarding of every foreign vessel, within our 3-mile limit, to determine if it had a license? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir. Mr. LENNON. Because it would be licensed in each of the three instances under the bill as now drawn. Admiral ROLAND. There would be some additional work because of this. It is a question of determining whether it is worth the extra work, I think. Mr. LENNON. Canada has extended its territorial waters to 12 miles fairly recently. Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir; it intends to extend its jurisdiction, for fishing purposes, to 12 miles. Mr. LENNON. But granting to those who historically fished within the 12-mile limit of Canada water to continue fishing, we would, of course, ostensibly, have the purpose of prohibiting at least two countries that we can easily think of from fishing. Great Britain, too, as of May 15, I believe, of this year, is also extending its territorial waters to 12 miles; is that true? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, I am not sure of the date. I know they have it in mind. Mr. LENNON. It was May 15 of this year but they will also permit those who historically fished within the 12-mile limit to continue. It is also aimed at two countries who have gone into fishing off its country's shores. The Geneva conference, I think, required a two-thirds vote, if I recollect. Do you understand that? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, I am quite sure it is two-thirds. Mr. LENNON. We participated in that. Admiral ROLAND. Yes. Mr. LENNON. It failed by one vote, I believe, of the two-thirds majority. Admiral ROLAND. You are speaking of the territorial limit? Mr. LENNON. Yes, sir. Admiral ROLAND. I am not sure of that. I know there was no agreement. Mr. LENNON. It was late last summer or early last fall that that Geneva Conference took place, September or thereabouts. Admiral ROLAND. No, it was a year before that, because it was before I became the Commandant of the Coast Guard. Mr. LENNON. There was another conference held in January of this year by a number of the European countries, was there not, in London, the fishing countries, to try to recommend some decision with respect to extending their territorial limits outward? Admiral ROLAND. Well, there have been conferences of fishing interests to discuss the effect of this. Mr. LENNON. Great Britain intends to act unilaterally on its 12mile extension? Admiral ROLAND. I am not qualified to answer this. Mr. LENNON. The various fishing associations on the Atlantic coast by resolution are openly now advocating the 12-mile limit for our country, are they not? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir. I think they have for a long time. Mr. LENNON. I understood that there are several major organizations that have done that. How about the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in its annual meeting of September of last year? Are you advised they by resolution unanimously agreed to petition the Congress and the President and the other executive parts of our Government for the extension to the 12-mile limit? Admiral ROLAND. I was not aware of that resolution specifically. Mr. LENNON. Incidentally, a very distinguished gentleman from New York, Dr. Lawrence, who is from the New York Department of Conservation, offered that motion which was agreed upon. How about the National Fisheries Institute? Have they by resolution proposed the 12-mile limit by resolution, to your knowledge? Admiral ROLAND. To my knowledge, no. I am not familiar with that. Mr. LENNON. Just for the record, I will put it in the record where they did and they likewise called on the executive branch of the Government and upon the Congress to look to the immediate possibility of extending our territorial waters out to the 12-mile limit. Mr. TOLLEFSON. Will the gentleman yield there? Are they advocating 12 miles for territorial waters? Mr. LENNON. Yes, sir. |