statement discloses, intend to do this before long. We know what has happened down in South America, and as much as we dislike acting unilaterally in situations such as that, my personal opinion is that we are going to have to, in self-protection." Mr. PELLY. Mr. Lennon, would you let me address a question? Mr. PELLY. You mention the 12-mile limit. I think it should not be passed over without recognition of the fact that historically certain areas have been fished by one nation beyond the 3-mile limit of another nation, such as with the State of Washington, where our fishermen have fished, in fact we pioneered and discovered the fishing off the 3-mile limit of British Columbia in Canada. Now, we do not feel that there is any right that Canada has between the 3- and a 12-mile limit unless we agree to it, but we might agree to retain our fishing rights and yield to them for other purposes, the difference between the 3- and 12-mile limits. I think there are two points of view on this. Mr. LENNON. Yes, the Senator mentions that, gets to that point later on in his statement. I am very happy to hear you would, as a Senate conferee, be willing to accept what I hope will be the position of this committee in striking from the bill the language found on page 2 beginning at line 1 through line 9, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a license to engage in fishing within the territorial waters and also to bring in and land its catch in the United States upon the certification by the Secretary of the Interior. Now, that was the Treasury Department's amendment or was it the Department of the Interior's amendment. You said it was one or the other? Senator BARTLETT. I do not know whether it came from State or Interior. I am advised it was from both in one form or another. Mr. LENNON. You make no limitation in your language found on page 2 between line 1 and line 9 with respect to whether or not this would be commercial fishing or recreational fishing by foreign-flag vessels within the territorial waters? Senator BARTLETT. No, I did not, and I suspect that I will not have to concern myself with that. Mr. LENNON. Significantly enough, in other words, when the language was included which you say was an amendment, did they spell out the fact that these permits or licenses issued by the Treasury Department should permit recreational fishing only by the foreign-flag vessels within our territorial waters? Senator BARTLETT. No. My memory is, and this would have to be checked Mr. LENNON. It was understood it was to be commercial fishing. Senator BARTLETT. It was intended to be exploratory, scientific type of fishing expeditions, that was the reason, as I recall, that the language was suggested. The departments did not, and I want to make this clear, ever take the position that foreign fishing vessels should come within our territorial waters and fish commercially and land those catches and sell them. Mr. LENNON. What does the language mean "to engage in fishing?" Does that not imply commercial fishing? Senator BARTLETT. I would agree with you. The implication is there. Mr. LENNON. But yet, when the Department of the Interior makes its report on that bill, it refers to it as "recreational fishing." Let me read to you their report of very recent date, February 18, found on page 5, speaking about this particular amendment. - Also, we believe it desirable to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury in his discretion, to permit foreign-flag vessels to engage in the privilege of recreational fishing in our territorial waters where permitted by the States. Why was not the adjective "recreational" placed in front of the word "fishing" on line 3 if it was their understanding that it would be limited to recreational fishing? Senator BARTLETT. I do not know why the word "recreational" is there. Mr. LENNON. It is in their report they furnished this committee on their comments on the bill of February 18, and I just wondered why, if they understood it to be exclusively recreational fishing, why it was not in the language of the bill that passed the Senate? Senator BARTLETT. No testimony relating solely to recreational fishing was given to the Senate committee. The CHAIRMAN. Let me interrupt. The report Mr. Lennon is talking of did not go to the Senate, it just reached this committee this morning. Mr. LENNON. I said it is dated February 18. Senator BARTLETT. I have not seen that, Mr. Lennon. Before the Senate committee there was no testimony The CHAIRMAN. It just came in. Mr. LENNON. I think you would be interested in knowing that they have interpreted the language of that amendment to read "recreational" and not "commercial" fishing. Senator BARTLETT. As it was explained to the committee, as I recall, one reason for this language was that an operation of Puerto Rico, such as was described for scientific purposes, was intended as a basis for the amendatory language. The CHAIRMAN. You would be interested in sport fishing as well as commercial fishing? Senator BARTLETT. Maybe it could be defended but I know nothing about that. It may have been for all I know that the Interior Department was thinking of some foreign visitors who came in here and who ought to have the right to fish, but I should think that would be under State law. The CHAIRMAN. We will develop that. Mr. KEITH. Will the gentlemen yield? Mr. LENNON. Yes. Mr. KEITH. It goes on to say in that same report, with reference to the kind of fishing that they anticipated in the amendment which was accepted on the Senate side, they would further amend it to indicate that the fishing was for exploratory or training purposes. They were engaged in fishery research. It is the next to last paragraph in their report of February 18. In other words, the original intent as was outlined by Senator Bartlett, was to enable oceanographic and fishery research vessels to engage in fishing as a part of their research. Rather than have the fish go to waste-we conduct this kind of operation ourselves-they would have the right to sell it in port, but the bill did not spell it out on the Senate side. The Department of the Interior has suggested a further amendment that would spell it out, the recreational purpose is an entirely new thing. Mr. LENNON. Thank you. I guess the English language stating fishing does not Mr. KEITH. Would the gentleman yield further? Mr. LENNON. Yes, sir. Mr. KEITH. You said in your introductory statement, Mr. Lennon, before you got into the details, this was a soft approach. Mr. LENNON. It is a first approach, but in my judgment it is rather soft. Mr. KEITH. It might also be called a negative approach in that it is intended to protect and to fend off competition from other nations. I would like to ask Senator Bartlett this. Is there any positive action that Congress could take to compete with the Japanese and Russian fleets? Senator BARTLETT. I think so. I think that we must update our fishing fleet on every coast. I think we must arrange a situation whereby more modern and larger fishing vessels can be made available and much as I dislike subsidy programs in general or specifically, I think that the bill providing for a construction subsidy which has passed the Senate, is a step in the right direction. Mr. KEITH. Would you excuse me just a minute? Do you not think that "indemnity" would be a better Senator BARTLETT. I vastly prefer that word. The CHAIRMAN. Let me interject here, you do not mean to mix these two subjects up together, do you? Senator BARTLETT. No. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to hold to what you are driving at here. We are going to have hearings on your fishing subsidy bill for trawlers. Senator BARTLETT. I felt obligated to answer this specific question from Mr. Keith. The CHAIRMAN. I did not want to get all mixed up in another subject here because we have a lot of Members of the House and they will all be wanting to say a word here this morning. I wanted to proceed along and hold the testimony close to the subject of this bill. M. LENNON. Senator, I know you are quite knowledgeable in this subject and that is the reason I was taking the time to seek information from a person who I believe knows what they are talking about. On page 9 of your statement, getting back to your feelings that the President should act : I believe that pressure will continue to grow in support of action by the President to extend jurisdiction over our coastal fishery resources by establishing a 12-mile fishery zone to assure the conservation of this national wealth. Now, if that is ultimately done, it would still permit in the 12-mile zone foreign fisheries which have traditionally fished in their 12-mile zone to come in and fish, would it not? Senator BARTLETT. That would be a matter of agreement among the nations concerned. 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. |