foreign-flag vessels may be permitted to enjoy the privilege of fishing in our territorial waters.

We believe, therefore, that S. 1988, as passed by the Senate on October 1, 1963, with some technical and clarifying amendments as outlined in the report of the Department, would fill a serious gap in existing law by providing suitable sanctions for unlawful fishing by foreign-flag vessels within the territorial waters of the United States.

With regard to those provisions of S. 1988, as passed by the Senate, which relate to the Continental Shelf, we are mindful that when the Convention on the Continental Shelf is ratified by 22 nations it will recognize that a coastal nation has sovereign rights over the shelf "for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources." Natural resources are defined in the convention to include some fishery resources.

We believe that the enactment of legislation to implement this convention ultimately will be desirable. At the present time, however, we anticipate a number of complex problems concerning implementation which will require further study. In addition, prohibition in the Senate-passed bill concerning fishery resources of the Continental Shelf raises problems of enforcement on the high seas as against foreign-flag vessels. The committee may therefore wish to consider deletion of this reference to fishery resources of the Continental Shelf in order that complex problems involved in this aspect of the matter can be considered fully. However, if the committee does not delete this provision, the Department has suggested in its report modifying provisions designed to clarify our specific responsibilities in enforcement. We believe these suggested changes are essential.

The need for legislation expressly to prohibit fishing by foreign-flag vesesls in our territorial waters is clear, and there are no peculiarly complex problems associated with enforcement. This aspect of the matter should be enacted without delay.

Mr. McKERNAN. Section 251 of title 46, United States Code, provides that only vessels licensed or enrolled pursuant to applicable laws of the United States shall be deemed vessels of the United States entitled to the privileges of vessels employed in coasting trade or fisheries.

It will be noted, however, that the quoted language is not expressly prohibitive and that it lacks the directness which is desirable to make it clear that foreign-flag vessels may not engage in fishing in our territorial waters. This is one reason, then, for the present legislation which we support.

Secondly, the bill provides penalties, as has been pointed out by other witnesses, for those foreign vessels convicted of fishing in U.S. waters illegally. There are no penalties in the present law.

Now, I suggest that I deal directly with the amendments that the Department has suggested, Mr. Chairman, and if the committee members wish to turn to the report of the Department I might mention then that these amendments provide authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to license foreign fishermen to fish in the territorial seas when (1) the Secretary of the Interior makes a finding that such is in the public interest; (2) the Secretary of Defense concurs; and (3) the State having jurisdiction also concurs.

Now, there has been considerable discussion among the witnesses concerning this particular provision in the present bill which is before the committee and, in fact, in the amendments suggested by the Department itself.

I would refer to the amendment in the Department's report at the bottom of page 3, amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 1, Mr. Chairman, is technical and does not go to the substance of the bill and unless the committee members have some specific question about it I would refer directly to amendment No. 2, which is a substantial amend

ment to the legislation itself, and in the first instance, would provide for authorization of foreign fishermen to fish in territorial seas when these three conditions I mentioned before have been met.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, it is our conclusion that the interests of local fishermen and the local States are adequately protected by the provisions which the Department suggests.

Secondly, in amendment No. 2, the amendment provides for authority for the Secretary of the Interior to license foreign fishermen to fish for resources of the Continental Shelf.

Now, digressing for a moment, Mr. Chairman, you may have noticed that the Department of Interior feels, as apparently the Department of State also, that the committee may wish to consider whether or not this is the appropriate time to consider the Continental Shelf provision.

We have consulted with the Department of State and we do recognize that there still are some matters of the Continental Shelf convention which need clarification for best implementation.

On the other hand, if the committee feels that this provision should remain in the bill itself, that is the Continental Shelf provision, then the Secretary of Interior would recommend that authority be given under certain very restricted conditions for the Secretary to license foreign fishermen to fish for resources of the Continental Shelf, again with three conditions: when the Secretary of the Interior makes such a finding that this is in the public interest, and, two, when the Secretary of Defense concurs, and, three, when the State having jurisdiction

concurs.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, as we understand the current laws, the States of Florida and Texas alone have this jurisdiction. Also, in amendment No. 2, there is provided the authority for the Secretary of the Treasury, by regulation, to permit foreign fishermen to fish in territorial waters for recreational purposes without Federal license. The provision of our amendment would waive the Federal requirement for a license leaving to the States themselves the determination of whether or not foreign sport fishing should be permitted within their State waters.

The Department has proposed this amendment and favors this particular approach to the legislation not because of foreign policy matters, but because we believe quite strongly that such provision should be included in the law, because of the importance of fishing within foreign jurisdictions to a number of our fishermen.

Mr. Tollefson raised that question this morning with the previous witness, Mr. Herrington, from the Department of State.

Both the tuna and shrimp industries really, moneywise, the largest fisheries in the United States, and to a lesser extent the New England ground fish fisheries, and the fisheries of the Pacific Northwest of the United States in close to the shores of Canada and Mexico and South American countries. It appears obvious to us that if there is no provision for licensing under any circumstances within our shores, we cannot expect other countries to allow licensing of American vessels within their shores.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it is my firm belief that this country should become and is becoming a high seas fishing nation. We must develop the fleets and the capability of fishing fishery resources every

30-021-64-7

where in the high seas. Therefore, this particular suggestion becomes rather important if we consider the movement of our vessels on the high seas, and on the high seas off the coasts of other countries, and in some instances within the coastal waters of these countries where these countries are not fully utilizing the resources of value to our fishermen. We believe it may be in the U.S. interest to permit the exploitation of certain underutilized resources. This may be of value to the local economy. For example, Japan has a tremendous market for seaweeds, edible seaweeds. I know there are tremendous beds of these seaweeds off some parts of the coasts of Alaska and in the Aleutian Islands. These are not harvested at all by the United States. It may be possible while I do not make a big point of this, Mr. Chairman—it is possible that it might be in the interest of the people of the State of Alaska to encourage the harvest of such resources that are not now harvested by us. Obviously, this harvest would be carefully controlled so as not to overutilize the resource, but nevertheless it might bring very valuable income to native villages or to some other people of the State of Alaska who might well need an expansion of their economy. Thirdly, as I mentioned before, it is desirable, it seems to me, for us not to place any unnecessary barriers in the way of future expansion of our fishing off foreign coasts.

Now, it has been pointed out this morning that it is possible, under the present wording of the bill before you, that by treaty the United States could reach an agreement to have its vessels fishing off these coasts. On the other hand, in Central and South America, the possibility of getting a treaty with all of these nations under the right conditions and with the right terms seems more likely if the United States has easy provisions—I mean provisions which are not prohibitive for possible fishing off its own coasts.

So, it seems to us that provisions in the bill to allow some kind of licensing with adequate safeguards is necessary.

I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that the Florida law under which the Cuban fishermen were prosecuted permits the licensing of foreign fishermen in Florida waters. It permits this by indirection. It prevents the licensing of, I think it calls them Communist nations or nations which are unfriendly to our general philosophies

The CHAIRMAN. The Supreme Court would kind of hold against that, would it not?

Mr. McKERNAN. I beg your pardon?

The CHAIRMAN. Would the Supreme Court not hold against that? Mr. McKERNAN. If this particular law were enacted as it now stands, this Florida law would be illegal because it would contradict Federal law.

Mr. LENNON. Will the chairman yield at that point?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LENNON. That is the point I tried to raise with the gentleman who represented the State Department. That is my fear of this law

Mr. McKERNAN. The present bill?

Mr. LENNON. That is right. It would preempt the rights of the States to enact laws to prohibit foreign fishing within the 3-mile limit. Mr. McKERNAN. Yes, if the amendment is stricken.

Mr. LENNON. You said in Florida that would be preempted if this law were in existence, and no State could prohibit foreign fishing within the territorial limits.

Mr. McKERNAN. Mr. Lennon, what I intended, the thought I intended

Mr. LENNON. I am quoting what you said, not what you intended. Go right ahead.

Mr. McKERNAN. If the present bill were enacted without the licensing amendment, the present Florida law, which gives Florida the right either to prohibit in one instance or to allow in another instance, would be in contradiction to Federal law and therefore be invalid.

Mr. LENNON. A number of States have statutes which make it unlawful to fish in their territorial waters, do they not?

Mr. McKERNAN. That is correct.

Mr. LENNON. Would the enactment of this statute have the same effect on the statutes of those several States just as it does Florida? Mr. McKERNAN. It would in a sense take the authority away from the State to either prohibit or allow foreign fishing.

Mr. LENNON. Yet you have the language in this bill that this must be approved by the respective States before you can grant a license to

come in.

Mr. McKERNAN. Mr. Lennon, the language in the present bill does not allow that. The language in the present bill prohibits

Mr. LENNON. No, sir.

Mr. McKERNAN. Pardon me, Mr. Lennon.

Mr. LENNON. If you read on page 2 at line 8, "Upon concurrence of any State, Commonwealth, or Territory."

Mr. McKERNAN. If you struck the Interior licensing amendment, you would not have this particular freedom of State action.

Mr. LENNON. Well, we can modify the language that is found on page 2 in line 3, engage in research or recreation fishing, add the words "research and recreational" after the word "in" on line 3, and you would still have to have the concurrence of the State, Commonwealth, or Territory to do that, would you not?

Mr. McKERNAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. What you want is to maintain the right to permit research within the territorial limits and also permit recreational fishing.

Mr. McKERNAN. Plus commercial fishing under certain circumstances.

Mr. LENNON. I cannot buy that. I say research and recreational, I do not think we ought to go any further than that, but I still want to retain the right of the State before this permit can be issued. I do not think we ought to permit commercial fishing within the 3-mile limit. Apparently we have no way in the world to protect ourselves beyond the 3-mile limit.

Mr. McKERNAN. Mr. Lennon, simply to add one comment for clarification. The amendment the Department has suggested would do what you have indicated except that it would also allow, under very special conditions, and those are the conditions I mentioned-when the Department of Interior and the Secretary of Defense, and the States themselves concur it is in the public interest-under those

special conditions licensing of foreign vessels for commercial fishing might be allowed.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. McKernan, let us for the sake of argument simply say that we agree, whether we do or not, that we ought not to prohibit so-called research fishing by foreign vessels within our territorial waters, and neither should we prohibit the so-called recreational fishing. Why could we not simply insert the words "research and recreational" after the word "in" on line 3 of page 2, and accomplish this same purpose that we are talking about? Now, admittedly it would not permit commercial fishing, as such, within the territorial waters, but it would still permit the research and the recreational, and it would permit the research catch to be brought into the United States port upon the issuance of a license by the Secretary of the Treasury, upon the certification of your Department, the Secretary of the Interior and, of course, the concurrence of the State, Commonwealth, or Territory directly affected.

I hope this committee will not buy the idea of permitting commercial fishing by foreign vessels within our 3-mile limit. I am assuming they will not, and I hope they will not.

Why have we not accomplished what you have in mind by inserting the words "research and recreation" before the word "fishing" on line 3 of page 2? Why have we not accomplished that purpose?

Mr. McKERNAN. You would have accomplished it, except, Mr. Lennon, I believe and the Department believes that in order to protect American interests in other places in the world where we are fishing off the coasts of other nations that we should, under very special circumstances, provide in the law that under these special circumstances commercial fishing could be allowed.

Mr. LENNON. Now, our shrimp and tunafish fishermen who go into the south, do they not have to get a license to fish even outside of the 3-mile limit?

Mr. McKERNAN. Well, some of these countries attempt to force them to get a license.

Mr. LENNON. And they do force them to get them.

Mr. McKERNAN. Sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. This is where the difficulty has arisen because sometimes they do not and the foreign country comes out and takes our boats into port.

Mr. LENNON. Could we not put a reciprocal clause in that same section to provide that we would reciprocate to those countries who issue a license?

Mr. McKERNAN. That sounds like a good idea.

Mr. LENNON. Within the 3-mile limit.

Mr. McKERNAN. Or within territorial

Mr. LENNON. No. Let us hold the same rule for other countries that they require of us. Let us not say to them, "Now, you do not have to get a license from us to fish 4 miles out, but if you come 3 miles you have to have a license."

Now, let us say to those same countries, "To those of you who will issue a license to our commercial fishermen within your 3-mile limit, we will do the same thing."

Mr. McKERNAN. For the most part, Mr. Lennon, I think that would accomplish the purpose which the Department has intended.