FISHING IN U.S. TERRITORIAL WATERS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1964 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 219, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Herbert C. Bonner (chairman of the committee) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Rivers, there was some further statement you wished to make. STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH J. RIVERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA-Resumed Mr. RIVERS. My statement is before you and I will start reading it at the top of The CHAIRMAN. Your full statement will be put in the record. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH J. RIVERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA Mr. Chairman, I am one of many who appreciate the scheduling of these hearings upon this important legislation so early in this session of the 88th Congress, and wish to thank you and the other members of this distinguished committee for the opportunity to be heard in favor of the legislation under consideration. I refer to S. 1988, authored and introduced in the Senate by the senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Bartlett, and cosponsored by nine other Senators, including the senior Senator from the State of Washington, Mr. Magnuson, who has stated the purpose of S. 1988 to be as follows: "First to protect our territorial waters from encroachment by foreign fishing vessels; and second, to preserve our marine resources on or attached to the Continental Shelf." May I add that this legislation also defines violations and prescribes penalties. I wish to also mention companion measures which have been introduced in the House and are also subject to these hearings. I refer to my bill, H.R. 7954; the bill introduced by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keith, H.R. 8296; and the bill introduced by our distinguished colleague from Florida, Mr. Rogers, H.R. 9957. Except for amendments adopted in the Senate, my bill and Mr. Keith's bill are identical to S. 1988. As I understand it, Mr. Rogers' bill, which was introduced since S. 1988 passed the Senate, coincides with the amended version of the Senate bill. I am gratified at the widespread support which this legislation is receiving. From the executive branch I note that endorsements have been received from the Department of State, the Department of the Interior, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Treasury. The Governor and the Legislature of Alaska have also urged passage of legislation such as this, and the support of the fishing industry on all our coasts has been forthcoming. In voicing my support, I would like to say that I have no objection to any of the Senate amendments embodied in S. 1988 as it passed the Senate, except the provision which would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to license fishing by foreign vessels within our territorial waters. 65 In support of this legislation I submit the following points: (a) The need for this legislation is urgent because during the past summer there have been numerous incidents off both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts in which Russian and Japanese vessels have engaged in fishing activities within our territorial waters or exploited resources of our Continental Shelf; for example, in addition to trawling for king crab in international waters of the Continental Shelf near Kodiak Island, Russians navigating fleets of modern, fast vessels have ruthlessly moved through waters already occupied by Alaskan fishermen and carelessly or deliberately damaged or destroyed their gear, consisting of crab pots marked with buoys. This, of course, has created an explosive situation and threatens the depletion of the great Alaska king crab fishery upon our Continental Shelf, concurrently with driving Alaskans from one of their traditional fishing grounds and thereby-unless brought to a stop-ruining their means of earning a livelihood. (b) Our Government presently lacks statutory authority to protect both our territorial waters within the 3-mile limit and resources upon the Continental Shelf. At present, encroachments by foreign vessels within our 3-mile limit can be met only by boarding and a polite request to leave. I suggest it is high time that the Congress define violations and prescribe the scope of penalties and authorize seizures and forfeitures in regard to encroachments by foreign vessels within our territorial waters, allowing, of course, for innocent passage as usually recognized. (c) The bill does not define "territorial waters," thereby leaving it open for our Government to follow the lead of Canada in establishing a 12-mile limit with straight baselines for fishing purposes. As regards fishing, this would take the place of our present 3-mile limit, and thereby match the 12-mile limit imposed and enforced by the Soviet Union. (d) There are two bases upon which the United States may claim the resources upon or attached to our Continental Shelf-first, pursuant to the provisions of the 1953 Submerged Lands Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Act, and, second, provisions found in the International Convention on the Continental Shelf entered into at Geneva in 1958, which convention will take effect upon the ratification of one more nation. Twenty-one nations have thus far signed this convention, including the Soviet Union and the United States. In this regard, I might say I am advised the State Department does not consider that unilateral action by the United States in claiming resources of the Continental Shelf would be either adequate or advisable, and that the United States should wait for one more ratification needed to put into effect the International Convention on the Continental Shelf. The State Department tells me that the desired ratification by one more nation is expected "presently." Thereafter the President would issue a proclamation asserting the claim of the United States to the crabs and other products of the Continental Shelf. The significance of what I am saying stems from the fact that this legislation would be prospective and would be available, if enacted now, as the law of the land for enforcing our claim to the products of the Continental Shelf as soon as the referenced international convention becomes effective and our claim declared. In conclusion, I emphasize the triple importance of this legislation as follows: First, it is needed as legal implementation for accomplishment by our Government of protection of our territorial waters; second, its undefined reference to territorial waters gives it a prospective effect as regards all the waters within a 12-mile fishing zone along our coasts as soon as such a zone is established; and, third, it would be available for enforcing our claim to the products of the Continental Shelf as soon as that claim is asserted. For these reasons I urge favorable action upon this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for your kind attention. Mr. RIVERS. I will carry out mostly the conclusion. I will start reading the first paragraph on page 3, in which I say there are two bases upon which the United States may claim the resources upon or attached to our Continental Shelf-first, pursuant to the provisions of the 1953 Submerged Lands Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Act, and, second, provisions found in the International Convention on the Continental Shelf entered into at Geneva in 1958, which conven tion will take effect upon the ratification of one more nation. Twentyone nations and Senator Bartlett mentioned this, 21 nations have thus far signed this convention, including the Soviet Union and the United States. In this regard, I might say I am advised the State Department does not consider that unilateral action by the United States in claiming resources of the Continental Shelf would be either adequate or advisable, and that the United States should wait for the one more ratification needed to put into effect the International Convention on the Continental Shelf. The State Department tells me that the desired ratification by one more nation is expected "presently." And I use the word "presently" in quotes, whatever that means. Thereafter, the President would issue a proclamation asserting the claim of the United States to the crabs and other products of the Continental Shelf. The significance of what I am saying stems from the fact that this legislation would be prospective, legally speaking, and would be available, if enacted now, as the law of the land for enforcing our claim to the products of the Continental Shelf as soon as the referenced international convention becomes effective and our claim declared. In conclusion, I emphasize the triple importance of this legislation as follows: First, it is needed as legal implementation for accomplishment by our Government of protection of our territorial waters; second, its undefined reference to territorial waters gives it a prospective effect as regards all the waters within a 12-mile fishing zone along our coasts as soon as such zone is established; and, third, it would be available for enforcing our claim to the products of the Continental Shelf as soon as that claim is asserted. That would not be asserted, apparently, under the reference policy until that one more nation signs that convention. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, and in line with many of the supporting statements made by other witnesses, I urge that favorable action be taken upon this legislation, and I thank you and the members of the committee for your attention. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rivers. The next witness is our colleague from Florida, Mr. Fuqua. STATEMENT OF HON. DON FUQUA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. FUQUA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to speak before your committee concerning S. 1988. This legislation regards a matter which I have been giving very serious thought and for which I have much concern. We of the United States have always tried to do our best in preserving the natural resources of our country. We have established laws and regulations which are used by this Government in protecting our natural resources, seeing that they are not misused and in some way providing meaures which will even help to increase them. I certainly feel that the fishing industry needs concrete protection of the natural resource from which they receive their livelihood. They are having to compete with an intrusion from a foreign source which has little repect for those who are trying to make a living from our own fishery resource. We have tried to protect this resource in our own country by issuing regulations and laws which our own people must observe. I want to say I am in complete accord with U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. E. J. Roland when he stated during the Senate hearings on this bill, "The United States imposes penalties upon activities of its own nationals which threaten fishing resources on the high seas. In all consistency, penalties should also be levied against foreign exploitation of fisheries in our own waters." I further wish to emphasize a point that concerns me with regard to this same problem of the Russian trawlers infringing upon the areas surounding our country. This point of concern is that this may not only be a danger to our fishing industry and its natural resource but also to the security of our country. The legislature of my own State of Florida has already passed legislation of this very type. As you may already know, the proximity of Communist Cuba has brought about the need of such legislation because of the threat this Communist satellite poses. Just this month 46 Cuban men were taken to Key West by the Coast Guard for socalled fishing in our territorial waters. The distressing and alarming point is how well equipped these fishing vessels were with sophisticated and intricate electronic equipment. Mr. Chairman, we all know that such complicated electronic equipment is not necessary for merely fishing. Cape Kennedy, one of the most important space sites in this Nation, is so near to such happenings as this. Of course, the "fishing vessels" need not come from nearby Cuba, but they can come from more distant ports and lie off our coast threatening this Nation with sabotage. It is my utmost desire that this committee see it fit to favorably consider this bill to bring about definite actions that will enable us to prohibit fishing in the territorial waters of the United States so that we might protect our natural resource, the people of our fishing industry, and, if I may say so, the security of our country. Again, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to come and give my views and feelings about this bill. I feel there is a serious matter involved, and I wanted to relate to you the feelings I have regarding it. The CHAIRMAN. We are pleased to have your statement. If there are no questions, we will hear Mr. Herrington next. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. HERRINGTON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE TO THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE Mr. HERRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am William C. Herington, Special Assistant for Fisheries and Wildlife to the Under Secretary of State. I appear before this committee to support the purposes of S. 1988, as approved by the Senate. Indeed, the Department of State fully approves of the purposes of this bill and sees no objection to it from the standpoint of the foreign relations of the United States. With increasing frequency foreign fishing and whaling vessels have been reported to be fishing in the territorial sea of the United States, particularly off Alaska. This development has been the outgrowth of the vast expansion of foreign fishing activities on the high seas off the coast of the United States since World War II. These waters, especially off New England and the Aleutian chain, are today fished by great numbers of foreign vessels and this has set the stage for frequent incursions into the U.S. territorial sea. This development has been accompanied by demands by fishermen and State officials that the U.S. Government initiate forceful action to deal with the offenders. The most recent incident involved the detention of four Cuban fishing vessels for illegal fishing operations in the U.S. territorial sea. The Federal law (46 U.S.C. 251) under which these vessels were detained by the U.S. Coast Guard provides no sanctions and, after appropriate investigation, as to whether any other Federal law was violated, the vessels were discharged from Federal custody. The State of Florida thereupon assumed jurisdiction over the case under applicable State law. Existing Federal law is, therefore, ineffectual for the purpose of dealing with foreign fishing and whaling vessels found fishing in the territorial sea of the United States. Federal authority is, in practical effect, limited to expulsion of the vessel from the territorial sea, thus providing no real deterrent to violations. After consultations with other interested agencies, the Department of State informed the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, in January of 1963, that it supported a general policy of stopping and boarding foreign fishing vessels found in the territorial seas, not in innocent passage, for the purpose of examining the vessel's papers, checking for violations of U.S. laws, or ordering the vessel to leave the territorial sea. Such policy was to be followed with respect to foreign fishing vessels without discrimination. Moreover, the Commandant was advised that the Department of State approved and would support efforts by the Department of the Interior to clarify and strengthen U.S. laws prohibiting foreign fishing in the territorial sea by foreign vessels. Hence, the Department is pleased to support the purposes of the present bill. Some refinements are indicated, however. First, the reference in section 1 of the bill to fisheries resources of the Continental Shelf is believed premature and the Department recommends that such reference be omitted. There are difficult and complex problems of enforcement in this connection which have never before confronted the United States and these will require much study before adequate means can be worked out for dealing with them. It is suggested that at some later date appropriate legislation to deal with this problem might be considered and that urgently needed legislation to prohibit and punish illegal fishing in the territorial sea should not be delayed for that purpose. The CHAIRMAN. Right there, are you going to enlarge on this paragraph? Mr. HERRINGTON. Yes, sir; if there are any questions, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Are you going to enlarge further on this paragraph? [Reading:] Reference in section 1 of the bill to fisheries resources of the Continental Shelf is believed premature. You do not say why you believe it is premature. Mr. HERRINGTON. One of the problems here is with regard to enforcement against a foreign-flag vessel on the high seas. This is a new problem facing the U.S. Government. International law has not yet |