FEBRUARY 14, 1964. GEORGE C. STARLUND, Director, Washington Department of Fisheries, DEAR GEORGE: I have been advised that hearings will be held on February 19-20 by Chairman Herbert C. Bonner, House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee on S. 1988, a bill to prohibit fishing in the territorial waters of the United States and in certain other areas by persons other than nationals or inhabitants of the United States. Ordinarily briefs are accepted by the committees for a short period after the hearing dates. S. 1988 introduced in the Senate by Senator Bartlett along with Senators Magnuson, Ervin, Jackson, Kennedy, Morse, Neuberger, Scott, Smathers, and Thurmond has passed the Senate. We vigorously support the enactment of S. 1988. I realize that certain of your people have expressed fears on the amendment made to S. 1988 when it passed the Senate which reads: "However, the Secretary of the Treasury may issue a license authorizing a vessel other than a vessel of the United States to engage in fishing within the territorial waters of the United States or for resources of the Continental Shelf which appertain to the United States and to land its catch in a United States port, upon certification by the Secretary of the Interior that such permission would be in the national interest and upon concurrence of any State, Commonwealth or territory directly affected." I am firmly convinced that the apprehensions expressed are without foundation. A license for fishing in U.S. territorial waters cannot be obtained from the Secretary of the Treasury without a concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior and the State involved. I cannot remotely conceive a Governor of the State of Alaska assenting to a foreign fishing operation off Alaska that would not be in the best interests of the State and Nation. I urge you to communicate with Representative Bonner in support of S. 1988. Although it is not official at this time, I understand that Chairman Bonner will hold hearings on S. 627 on March 3. S. 627 is a bill to promote State fishery research and development projects, and for other purposes. It has passed the Senate. The enactment of S. 627 would have a salutary effect on commercial fisheries research and development. Alaska strongly supports the enactment of this vital legislation. I am advising you of the above hearing dates to keep you informed. Alaska will communicate with Chairman Bonner in support of the above two bills. I am confident you are interested in likewise informing the committee on your reaction to the above bills in behalf of your State. Kindest personal regards. Sincerely, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Keith. STATEMENT OF HON. HASTINGS KEITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. KEITH. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before this committee, on which I have the honor of serving. I have a rather long and somewhat detailed prepared statement which is in the hands of the committee. Perhaps in the interest of time it would be best if I just referred to parts of it. This legislation in my opinion is essential to our fishing industry. As I testified before the Senate Commerce Committee last September, I consider the bill significant beyond the immediate scope of its few carefully drawn phrases. It is my hope that it will become a first step and new foundation for a series of measures to clarify and unmistakably enunciate our historic national rights to the valuable resources of the sea. Resources and I know I do not need to tell this committee which have been ruthlessly exploited in a growing list of instances. This exploitation has not been as much by our commercial rivals in the free world as by the huge floating "Kombinats," as they are known in Russia-the state-owned, deep-sea fishing cooperatives that have invaded every ocean in the world. There is widespread interest in this bill and there has been for some time, Mr. Chairman. The New Bedford Standard-Times has commented on it in an editorial entitled, "The Undefined Sea." Also, the Boston Herald has written an editorial, "Fishing in Troubled Waters." The fishermen in my district have had, in many cases, direct contact with the Soviet fleets operating off the New England coast and I would like to include in the record copies of several letters I have recently received from these fishermen and from the Seafood Producers' Association of New Bedford, with regard to this legislation. I would also like to include an article from Newsweek, which I have a copy of here, entitled "Nothing for the Birds." It refers to the kind of operation that the Russians are conducting in waters not far from Nantucket. The CHAIRMAN. They do not leave anything for the sea gulls? Mr. KEITH. That is correct, the sea gulls do not follow the Russian ships, they follow our ships, because the Russians are doing as is indicated in a telegram I received this morning, from a lobster fisherman in my district. He says: Approve of this bill, H.R. 8296. Russians depleting grounds of all seafood, even trash fish. Bottom clean as a whistle on grounds we fish. The fish or crabs that they don't eat go to fertilizer. Continued fishing means doom of New England fishing industry. More information to follow in letter. Then I have a letter which I quote from in my prepared statement of a refugee from behind the Iron Curtain in which he supports this legislation. He said that: As you know, in the last couple of years huge fishing fleets, mostly from Communist countries have invaded our good fishing grounds. They are not only here for fishing but some of them are looking for our country's security. I, myself, am an escapee from Russia Latvia, and now an American citizen; so you, a Congressman from my district, can be proud for trying to get at least some stronger bill as the H.R. 8296. In the future I hope that you do more. Introduce at least a 12-mile fishing limit, not only for the fishing industry but for the whole country's security. I often hear from my occupied country, Latvia, that the Russians are building more and more big fishing vessels to invade our waters. I think more restrictions from our country are needed to make it difficult for these foreign vessels to come into our waters. The CHAIRMAN. I am interested in this page 3. You say Russia has a 12-mile limit? Mr. KEITH. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. So, they could not object to a 12-mile limit? Mr. KEITH. No; but this is a most complicated problem, as was indicated by Senator Bartlett, and the section representative from the State Department, Mr. Hearrington, would advise us that our own fishing vessels occasionally go within 12 miles of the shores of other countries. It does present problems which would become evident to the committee if we were to raise the limit to 12 miles, but it certainly is worthy of a study. The CHAIRMAN. They prohibit our vessels from coming within 12 miles? Mr. KEITH. Russia does. But, it is my understanding, for instance, that Canada permits us, even though they are going to a wider offshore limit than us, they will permit us within that limit, recoginizing the historic rights we have previously enjoyed. I have no further comments. I would be glad to try and answer any questions that you might have. I do have some pictuers that were taken when I flew over this fleet off the shores of Nantucket last summer and saw these vessels lined up for miles, from horizon to horizon. I counted 75 personally-mother ships and trawlers. The CHAIRMAN. You might pass those around. Mr. KEITH. I also have some taken off the Alaskan coast, too, but Mr. Rivers of Alaska will testify to this. These are pictuers that were taken by the Boston Globe and the New Bedford Standard-Times of Russian ships off our coastline. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? Mr. LENNON. Mr. Keith, you have made a fine statement, I have tried to read it ahead of you since you announced you would not be able to read it all. It is a very, very fine statement. You say you counted up to 75? Mr. KEITH. Yes, sir. Mr. LENNON. You say the gulls do not follow the Russian ships? Mr. KEITH. No, sir. Mr. LENNON. They use everything? Mr. KEITH. That is correct. Mr. LENNON. You even state they have medical, pharmaceutical facilities on these ships to package their medical supplies out of oil and fish organisms. How did you get that information? Mr. KEITH. We have a book from the Library of Congress that delineates these ships and their capacity on a worldwide basis, and particularly the Communist countries, and I will be glad to make that book available to the committee. Mr. LENNON. Thank you, Mr. Keith. Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, when it is my turn, I would like to ask Mr. Keith some questions. The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead. Mr. PELLY. Regarding this point made with regard to recreational boats, do you not have citizens of Massachusetts who go up to Canada and have recreational fishing within Canada's 3-mile limit Mr. KEITH. No. The fishing is so good in the waters of Buzzards Bay we do not have to go up to Canada. Mr. PELLY. The Canadians do not come down and fish inside your 3-mile limit and engage in this excellent fishing? In other words, should there not be some provision that recreational boats from Canada could go down to Florida, maybe, or vice versa, under some licensing system of States? Mr. KEITH. I would not have as strong an objection to that on the surface as Senator Bartlett did, but it is a brandnew amendment that has been suggested. Mr. PELLY. There are hundreds of State of Washington recreational boats that go up to Canada and each American that wants to fish within their salt water and within their 3-mile limit, pays a nonresident fee and gets a license to fish. Mr. KEITH. We are delighted to have the boats come from Canada to Buzzards Bay and fish. Mr. PELLY. I think that is a point that the committee ought to recognize when we are considering amendments. There is one other thing. In the bill as it has been introduced, it says: Upon concurrence of any State, Commonwealth, or territory directly affected. Now, have you read this report that comes in from the Department of the Interior? Mr. KEITH. No. Mr. PELLY. They vitiate that whole thing by requiring concurrence of any State having jurisdiction over any Continental Shelf. Outside of some of the oil rights I did not know there was any claim of States to have jurisdiction on the Continental Shelf outside the 3-mile limit at the moment. The CHAIRMAN. There are States rights. Mr. PELLY. But I do not think there is any legal claim for a State to have jurisdiction over certain continental shelfs and the fishing thereof, and the language that has been suggested to us, it seems to me, would be a lot "softer," if I may use that term, than the actual provision which was put in the Senate bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Keith, how far out was this fleet that you flew over? Mr. KEITH. About 35 miles. Mr. DOWNING. Thank you. It was a fine statement. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pelly, maybe you would like to give them the oil. Mr. PELLY. I would like to say the Federal Government has claimed all the oil outside certain limits, and I think it could claim all the fish. The rights of any States to have any veto power on this could be restricted as the language is in the Department of the Interior recommendation. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tollefson? Mr. TOLLEFSON. Not at this point. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? We are going to have Mr. Keith with us right along, I hope. I would like to have your full statement put in the record. I want to ask you one more question before you leave, Mr. Keith. Do we have any vessels of this type at all in our fishing fleets? Mr. KEITH. Only two I believe. We have one stern ramp trawler that was, I believe, financed through Federal funds with this committee's authorization and one smaller, privately owned trawler in my district. They very simply prove the need for more efficient fishing vessels of our own. But we have nothing that comes anywhere near that [indicating photo of Russian vessel]. The CHAIRMAN. The trawlers you speak of do not go into the extensive processing that you seek of in these ships? Mr. KEITH. Under the bill which Mr. Bates filed 5 years ago, and which this committee acted on, there have been some designed improvements in our ability to compete with the Russians. (The statement mentioned follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. HASTINGS KEITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Chairman, along with my distinguished colleagues, Mr. Rivers of Alaska and Mr. Rogers of Florida, I have the privilege of sponsoring the legislation now before the committee for consideration, legislation which I feel is necessary and long overdue. The prompt enactment of this legislation, in my opinion, is essential to the American fishing industry. As I testified before the Senate Commerce Committee last September, I consider this bill significant beyond the immediate scope of its few carefully drawn sentences. It is my hope that it will become a first step and new foundation for a series of measures to clarify and unmistakably enunciate our historic national rights to the valuable resources of the sea. Resources (and I know I don't need to tell this committee) which have been ruthlessly exploited in a growing list of instances. This exploitation has not been as much by our commercial rivals in the free world as by the huge floating "kombinats," as they are known in Russia-the state-owned deep sea fishing cooperatives that have invaded every ocean of the world. The many stories of these great Russian fishing armadas off Cape Cod and Nantucket, the numerous incidents in Alaskan waters, and the frequent reports of Red trawlers caught monitoring American space shots, are well known to us all. The situation has been sharply dramatized recently by the violation of Florida's coastal waters by Communist vessels from Cuba and, of course, by Castro's subsequent attempt to intimidate U.S. forces at Guantanamo Bay in retaliation for the seizure of his fishing boats. These vessels had no business in our territorial waters. The United States should not again be in a position, as it is, to have to rely on the foresight of the Florida Legislature to take effective action against such intruders. The international aspects of such an incident, and the questionable if not outright belligerent nature of some of these vessels, demands that the Federal Government have the statutory tools to act authoritatively, immediately, and decisively to protect our domestic fisheries and to protect our national security. I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that this bill alone cannot deter the great foreign fleets that have invaded our traditional fishing grounds. Its prompt passage, however, and its vigorous enforcement, can serve due notice-particularly to our own beleaguered fishermen that the United States does not intend to forfeit its position as a leading fishing nation or relinquish by default its rightful claim to the resources of the sea. This bill will serve, too, as a just warning to those who now venture boldly inshore, knowing they risk little more than the inconvenience, perhaps, of being boarded by the Coast Guard and escorted back out beyond our territorial limits. Enactment of this legislation will mean that they risk everything-their vessel, gear, and catch, a heavy fine and even jail, when they fish in our waters or when they attempt to carry out intelligence missions in the innocent guise of fishermen. As such, this legislation is a step toward a more fundamental solution. Its provisions can apply with equal effectiveness at some future time to a possible 12-mile limit or to whatever limit we determine is in the national interest and consistent with the need to conserve our fishery resources. There is a great deal of interest, as you know, within the fishing industry with respect to an extension of our fishing rights. In view of the unilateral claims by a majority of other littoral nations to greater and greater areas of exclusive fishing rights, the time is coming very soon when we will have to face this problem. Indeed, I find it increasingly difficult to see the logic of denying our own fishing fleet a broader area of exclusive national rights when not only our cold war enemies but our friends reserve such rights for their fishermen. I have the greatest respect for our longstanding support of the principle of freedom of the seas. This has gone hand-in-hand with our endorsement of a narrow, 3-mile, coastal sea. But, after repeated attempts, we have been largely unsuccessful in promoting this principle among the other maritime and fishing |