The CHAIRMAN. Going back to the statements and the colloquy held by Mr. Lennon and Mr. Downing with the witness with respect to extending this to the 12-mile limit, I merely ask the two gentlemen whether or not they would think it advisable in this bill to proceed with that limitation or confine ourselves to the 3-mile limit here and then introduce a different bill over here extending it to the 12-mile limit and bring the State Department and other interested parties here to testify on that proposal? Mr. LENNON. I think that is the proper way to proceed, Mr. Chairman. It should not be included in this. The CHAIRMAN. This immediate question needs attention now and extending the 12-mile limit brings in a broader field that we should go into soon since other nations of the world are looking for the 12-mile limit and are passing legislation respecting the 12-mile limit. Mr. DOWNING. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I think this ought to be the subject of a separate hearing but it should be done because it is obviously needed and it is important that we do it. Perhaps it is better now to go ahead with the 3-mile territorial limit and figure on hearings later on extending it to 12 miles. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goodling. Mr. GOODLING. Admiral, I am not at all certin, but how are territorial waters determined? Admiral ROLAND. Traditionally, it is not established by statute. I think the first statement of the 3-mile territorial limit for the United States was made by Thomas Jefferson and it still stands. Mr. GOODLING. Then the territorial waters of the United States and other countries are not uniform? Admiral ROLAND. Well, the 3-mile limit is generally recognized in international law but I don't think very many countries have the law in their statutes although I do not say that none of them do. I believe that generally it is established by executive act and I think this is what is to happen in the case of Great Britain. Mr. GOODLING. I believe Mr. Lennon just said that Canada has a 12-mile limit. Is that correct? Admiral ROLAND. Yes; Canada has indicated its intention to extend its jurisdiction for fishing to 12 miles. Mr. PELLY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOODLING. I yield. Mr. PELLY. I have read that Canada is considering it and has declared her intention but I believe there would be provisions which would allow U.S. fishermen to fish where they historically have fished. Mr. TUPPER. Will the gentleman yield further? The 12-mile limit in respect to fishing will be put into effect in Canada in May of this year. There are discussions now between the two Governments to grant reciprocal rights for U.S. fishermen in Canadian waters, I believe. Mr. GOODLING. Admiral, I am not a navigator but does this supposition pose any problems for you? Suppose you find a ship a half mile on one side or the other of our territorial waters, can you always determine exactly where you are? Admiral ROLAND. We have to determine or we have to be sure of our grounds. In most cases, we can determine the 3-mile limit pretty exactly by the means we have for navigation now. For instance, we know in the case of the Cuban fishing boats that one of them was 1.9 miles off the shore. Mr. GOODLING. How about our neighbors to the south? What do they have so far as territorial waters are concerned? Admiral ROLAND. Well, in some cases, 3 miles, but the Mexicans have 9 miles, and several others have limits ranging from 6 to 200 miles. The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Goodling, if you will let me interrupt you at this point, I will read this letter from the State Department and then put the letter in the record. The letter is addressed to the Chair: During the course of hearings on S. 1988 on February 20 you requested certain information concerning the jurisdiction claimed by other countries over territorial waters and fishing. This information is from the survey made by the United Nations Secretariat at the time of the 1960 Law of the Sea Conference and modified by any specific information received since that time (all distances given are from the shore or baselines): And it goes on to give these countries. You are speaking about Canada. It lists Canada: However, Canada has announced plans to extend jurisdiction over fishing to 12 miles in May 1964. I am going to put this letter in the record, but it goes on to give countries: Albania, 10 miles; Algeria, 12 miles; Cambodia, 5 miles; Cameroon, 6 miles; Costa Rica, 200 miles; Ecuador, 12 miles, 200 miles fishing. I merely point these out as excerpts or samples taken from this letter. Iceland, 4 miles territorial sea, 12 miles fishing; India, 6 miles territorial sea, 100 miles fishing; Korea, 20 to 200 miles fishing; Lebanon, 6 miles fishing; Libya, 12 miles; Norway, 4 miles territorial sea, 12 miles fishing. It seems that a lot of these countries have the territorial limitation one thing and the fishing another. South Africa, 6 miles territorial sea, 12 miles fishing; Tunisia, 6 miles territorial sea, 12 miles fishing zone for a portion of the coast. I will put this in the record because there is no uniformity in the territorial sea nor the fishing claim by various countries of the world. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 24, 1964. Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the course of hearings on S. 1988 on February 20, you requested certain information concerning the jurisdiction claimed by other countries over territorial waters and fishing. This information is from the survey made by the United Nations Secretariat at the time of the 1960 Law of the Sea Conference and modified by any specific information received since that time (all distances given are from the shore or baselines): 1. Countries claiming a territorial sea of 3 miles with no further jurisdiction over fishing: Australia. Belgium. Canada (however, Canada has announced plans to extend jurisdiction over fishing to 12 miles in May 1964). China (Communist China claims 12 miles). Cuba. Malaysia. France. Ireland. Japan. Jordan. Liberia. Netherlands. Poland. United Kingdom. 2. Countries claiming a territorial sea of 3 miles with additional jurisdiction over fishing (set forth in parentheses): Argentina (10 miles). Brazil (12 miles). Denmark (12 miles for Greenland and Faroe Islands). Pakistan (1 marine league). 3. Other claims to extended jurisdiction: Albania (10-mile territorial sea, 12 miles fishing). Algeria (12-mile territorial sea). Bulgaria (12-mile territorial sea). Cambodia (5-mile territorial sea, 12 miles fishing). Cameroon (6-mile territorial sea). Ceylon (6-mile territorial sea). Chile (50-kilometer territorial sea, 200 miles fishing). Ecuador (12-mile territorial sea, 200 miles fishing). Ethiopia (12-mile territorial sea). Finland (4-mile territorial sea). Greece (6-mile territorial sea). Guatemala (12-mile territorial sea). Iceland (4-mile territorial sea, 12 miles fishing). India (6-mile territorial sea, 100 miles fishing). Iran (12-mile territorial sea). Italy (6-mile territorial sea). Korea (20 to 200 miles fishing). Lebanon (6 miles fishing). Libya (12-mile territorial sea). Malagasy Republic (12-mile territorial sea). Mexico (9-mile territorial sea). Moroco (12 miles fishing). Norway (4-mile territorial sea, 12 miles fishing). Panama 12-mile territorial sea). Peru (200-mile territorial sea). Rumania (12-mile territorial sea). Saudi Arabia (12-mile territorial sea). Senegal (6-mile territorial sea, 12 miles fishing). South Africa (6-mile territorial sea, 12 miles fishing)... Spain (6-mile territorial sea). Sudan (12-mile territorial sea). Sweden (4-mile territorial sea). Syria (12-mile territorial sea). Tanganyika (12-mile territorial sea). Thailand (6-mile territorial sea, 12 miles fishing). Tunisia (6-mile territorial sea, 12 miles fishing, plus a much extended fishing zone for a portion of the coast). U.S.S.R. (12-mile territorial sea). United Arab Republic (12-mile territorial sea). Uruguay (6-mile territorial sea, 12 miles fishing). Venezuela (12-mile territorial sea). Vietnam (20 kilometer fishing). Yugoslavia (6-mile territorial sea, 10 miles fishing). 4. The following countries note their territorial sea "in accordance with international law" without specifying a specific distance: Costa Rica (but note fishing jurisdiction above). Germany. New Zealand (3 miles fishing). Sincerely yours, FREDERICK G. DUTTON, Assistant Secretary. Mr. DOWNING. Would the gentleman yield? It might be interesting for this committee to know why the 3-mile limit was established by the United States. It was a result of tests done by the Navy in 1803 and the 3-mile range was set because that was the shore cannon range that was reasonably accurate at that range and beyond that the jurisdiction ended. So it was set up with that idea in mind and it needs change. The CHAIRMAN. I think this letter in itself points out the fact that we should deal with this fishing limitation in separate legislation. Mr. GOODLING. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Downing. Mr. DOWNING. Admiral, getting back to your recommendations, you suggest rewording of the provision in the bill relating to the Continental Shelf jurisdiction, and suggest we use the words of the language of the Convention on the Continental Shelf instead of the language in the bill. Is that correct? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir. The bill makes no reference to kinds of marine life that are involved in this and the Continental Shelf Convention does. All countries are not parties to the Continental Shelf Convention and so there is not universal recognition of its provisions. So what we think is that this bill should have specific provision for the kinds of enforcement that we are to undertake on the Continental Shelf so that we can uniformly apply it to all countries. Mr. DOWNING. Why would it be necessary to specify the different marine types? Admiral ROLAND. There is some question about what is intended in the application of this convention. It addresses itself principally to the bottom and below the bottom and animal life which exists on the bottom, not in the waters above. For instance, crabs; there would have to be a decision made and stated as to whether crabs are included in this. Fish would not be unless the bill stated it. Mr. DOWNING. Would it apply to whales? Admiral ROLAND. NO. Mr. DOWNING. In other words, there would be no fishing rights of the United States if whales were involved? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, that is right. The Continental Shelf applies to the shelf itself and not the waters above it. Mr. MURPHY. Will the gentleman yield? When we talked about fish, Admiral, do we talk about sea-living mammals such as whales, sea lions, and seal; that type? Admiral ROLAND. Yes. Mr. MURPHY. Are they considered as fish or mammals? Admiral ROLAND. Well, the treaties and statutes protect them in much the same way as fish. If we, for instance, detected someone taking a whale inside the 3-mile limit, we would arrest him under the pro 30-021-649 visions of sections 916-9161 of title 16 which applies to whaling in our territorial waters and this stands up all right. Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DowNING. I vield to the Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. In the light of the testimony that has been before this committee and I think in your statement itself, it has been brought out that foreign vessels are not permitted to come within the 3-mile limits except for innocent passage, yet there is no penalty after you perform your duty, and so forth. Would the witness think that it might be best that this committee proceed with the thought of providing penalty provisions for the 3-mile territorial waters that we claim now and take this Continental Shelf up when we discuss extending the territorial waters? The testimony has been such that we feel that this bill needs expedition but the extension of territorial waters provision needs further and extensive hearings. If we were to proceed to rewrite this bill and leave out the Continental Shelf provisions and the other things you have suggested and merely deal with the penalties in the 3-mile limit, what would be your opinion about that? Admiral ROLAND. This I think would be a good step. There are many complications in our dealing with the Continental Shelf and the other is simple and direct. The 3-mile limit is easy to understand and the only thing that is lacking now within the 3-mile limit is a penalty, so that this is a very easy matter to dispose of, in my mind. It seems to me that there is no question as to the good sense in applying a penalty now. The other is good and we favor some sort of restriction on fishing in waters beyond the 3-mile limit but the Continental Shelf is a vague thing in our minds now and what is intended is vague, what kind of enforcement, fishing for what sort of things, and so on. The CHAIRMAN. In your statement did you make any recommendation as to penalty provisions to be provided for violation of the 3mile limit? Admiral ROLAND. I think there is a direct reference to it. If it isn't, we missed a bet, because we are all for that and it is in the bill, of course, and we are favoring the bill and we have just this slight reservation. The CHAIRMAN. You endorse what is in the bill with respect to the violation of the 3-mile limit? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did you finish, Mr. Downing? Mr. DowNING. Yes. Thank you, Admiral. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tupper. Mr. TUPPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral Roland, how many additional vessels and how many additional men would be required by the Coast Guard to enforce this bill as it is written now with the prohibition as to fishing within the Continental Shelf? Admiral ROLAND. This is a hard question for me to answer for the reasons that I have stated before. We don't know just what enforcement is involved here. Mr. TUPPER. It would take additional personnel and craft if the bill was passed as it is now? Admiral ROLAND. I am quite sure it would and how many would depend upon what is specified. |