Mr. DOWNING. Senator, I want to compliment you, too. 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. 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, Proclamàtion 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. By July of last year the Russian fleet had swelled to 230 vessels concentrating approximately 15 to 40 miles off the coast in the Gulf of Alaska. The Japanese fleet remained relatively stable at approximately 100 vessels but there was some indication of a decrease in activity. Through August and September there were approximately 150 Russian vessels and 100 Japanese vessels operating at times within 15 to 40 miles off Kodiak and in the Gulf of Alaska. The number of foreign fishing vessels operating off Alaska sharply decreased during the fall but by January of this year, only 1 month ago, there were again over 200 Russian vessels operating near Alaska in the Bering Sea. I submit this month-by-month account of the situation in order to give to the committee an impression of the degree of intensity of the foreign fishing operations near our coast. I think that it should be emphasized that these vessels concentrate where fish can be taken in substantial quantities. This frequently means along the edge of our Continental Shelf which at times lies very close to our coast. The size of this operation itself suggests that it would be anticipated that intrusions within our territorial waters would occur. This is particularly true when there are no penalties attached to such intrusions. I have prepared for the committee a list of incidents in which the 16 foreign vessels have been sighted within the territorial waters of Alaska in the past 8 months. I am personally convinced that more will occur this summer, particularly if no legislation is passed to provide any effective deterrent. I have referred primarily to the situation off Alaska but it is well known that Russian fleets have operated frequently within 15 to 20 miles off Cape Cod on the Atlantic coast and even at times within 4 miles. It has also been confirmed that Cuba through the Swiss Embassy in Havana has recently notified the United States that we can expect an accelerated level of Cuban fishing near our Gulf Coast States this summer. If the Cubans have learned to fish from the Russians (and I am convinced they have) I believe the Cubans will fish as close to shore as we permit. Sometimes they will fish closer. I believe that it would be a misconception if one were to interpret this foreign fishing activity off the United States in isolation. Actually the trend has been to increase substantially the world fishery catch and to improve substantially and modernize fishing vessels. One of the most obvious examples of this postwar expansion is the Russian fishing industry. The Soviet catch has increased approximately fourfold since 1946. The primary effort in this accelerated program has been to develop a Soviet high seas fishery. The importance given to foreign fishing grounds is due in part to the fact that the Soviet catch in the Baltic, Caspian, and Black Seas has substantially decreased and has suffered from excessive exploitation. In 1950 only 40 percent of the Soviet catch was taken on the high seas. this figure had reached 80 percent. By 1962 This Russian accomplishment has been made possible by the construction and operation of modern trawlers and factory ships. The trawlers ranged from 2,400 to 3,200 tons with crews of approximately 100 men each. The largest vessels are the Soviet floating canneries and mother ships which have a crew of up to 640. These modern vessels have permitted Russia to take fish in waters throughout the world and have permitted this to be accomplished with the use of rough, high sea tactics. Russian trawlers have recently been involved in serious international incidents off Plymouth and Devon, England; Scotland; Norway; and Alaska. Criticism has been made not only of the rough tactics used but reports were also made that the Soviet trawlers caused a decrease in the resources along the coast. Primarily as a result of this increased foreign fishing activity, numerous nations within the past 5 years have extended their jurisdiction over fishery resources beyond the traditional 3-mile limit. This has been done frequently by establishing fisheries zones similar in many respects to other contiguous zones recognized by the United States such as those for customs and immigration. At the time the question of the territorial sea was raised at the United Nations conference in 1958 a majority of coastal nations did not exercise jurisdiction over fisheries beyond their 3-mile limit. Within the past few years the situation has drastically changed. Well over a majority of coastal nations today exercise jurisdiction over fishery resources beyond the 3-mile limit. Many of the traditional coastal states that have stood in favor of the limited jurisdiction have swung sharply in the other 30-021-64- -4 direction. For example, Canada made public last year its intention to exercise jurisdiction over a 12-mile fishery zone beginning in May of this year. Last month in London a European Fisheries Convention agreed to recommend to their governments a new convention which would give to each of the 13 coastal states the exclusive right to fish within a 6-mile zone and to impose its regulations in a further zone between 6 and 12 miles which would remain open only to fishermen who had traditionally fished the area. Those attending the conference included the United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. The United States stands virtually alone as a world fishing power with no jurisdiction over our fisheries beyond the 3-mile limit and with certain knowledge that these extensive coastal fisheries are the target of foreign fishing interests. We find ourselves in this position even while knowing that over 80 percent of the U.S. catch off our coast is taken within a 12-mile limit. 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 natural wealth. The clear international trend is to recognize the right of any foreign nation that has traditionally fished within the 12-mile zone, and we must make certain that the rights of U.S. fishermen are fully and unconditionally protected in this respect. I sincerely hope that the President can make the necessary arrangements to act and establishes a 12-mile fishery conservation zone off our coast before these resources become traditionally fished by Russia and Cuba or any other foreign nation and are thereby destroyed or lost. This bill is only a step in the direction of conserving our offshore fishery resources. This type of legislation was passed by other nations similarly situated years ago. This is an essential step if the United States is to begin to meet its obligation to conserve and protect our coastal fishery. TABLE OF FOREIGN VIOLATIONS OF ALASKA TERRITORIAL WATERS (1) Two Soviet trawlers on June 3, 1963, sighted within 3-mile limit near Port Moller. (2) Two Soviet fishing vessels (1 mother ship and 1 catcher) on June 28, 1963, sighted within territorial waters off Sutwik Island. (3) One Japanese whaler on July 3, 1963, sighted 11⁄2 miles from Cape Edgecumbe. (4) Three Japanese whaling vessels on July 10, 1963, sighted within territorial waters off Coronation Island. (5) Four Soviet whale killer vessels on July 30, 1963, sighted 11⁄2 miles west of Nakchamik Island. (6) Two Soviet whale killers on Aug. 30, 1963, sighted within 3-mile limit off Adak. (7) One Soviet trawler on Nov. 27, 1963, sighted 2 miles from Shemya Island. (8) One Soviet fishing vessel on Jan. 17, 1964, sighted 2 miles off Attu. [Telegram] JUNEAU, ALASKA, February 18, 1964. Senator E. L. BARTLETT, Washington, D.C. Alaska State Chamber of Commerce supports Senator Bartlett's S. 1988 to limit foreign fishing vessels in U.S. territorial waters. Proposed penalties provide necessary protection against violators. We urge your favorable consideration, which we believe in the best interest of Alaska's and America's fishing industry. DON DICKEY, General Manager, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce. |