This problem of interference with our fishing fleet is not new, but flares anew at periodic intervals. In the past 3 years there have been seizures of U.S. vessels on at least four or five occasions on the Campeche Banks notwithstanding the presence on the banks of a Coast Guard vessel. To my knowledge there has never been a seizure in the presence of a Coast Guard vessel, which gives credence to the theory of acting as a deterrent, but the distances are so great that it is impractical to conduct a comprehensive surveillance.

In the last sentence of the same paragraph you mention that this information was relayed to Congressman Kilgore. I am sure this is accurate, and I am sure that following this Congressman Kilgore or his administrative assistant was in touch with this office on several occasions, and understood thoroughly the position of the Coast Guard.

Referring to the last paragraph on page 2, you again advert to the Coast Guard maintaining "an adequate patrol in the area." Without belaboring the issue, I would again point out that at no time was there an indication as to what constitutes an adequate patrol, and certainly the determination of the additional patrol as being adequate was not that of the Coast Guard. You inferentially acknowledge this fact in paragraph 3, page 4, when in commenting on the limited duration the Coast Guard per force put on the additional patrol, you stated as follows: "* * which was not adequate for the Department of State's

purposes."

*

Further in this paragraph you make several inaccurate statements which, although not too important, should be clarified for the record. First, with reference to the taking of vessels out of a reserve fleet, if such a statement was made by a member of the Coast Guard as you indicate, I would presume it could only have called attention to the fact that the Coast Guard has no reserve fleet to draw on; therefore, the only reserve fleet would be that of the Navy. The vessels therein are all larger types than those used by the Coast Guard for our gulf duties, more expensive to operate and expensive to reactivate. As you indicated, the Coast Guard did state that to build suitable patrol craft it would cost approximately $2 million each, with an attendant operating cost of about $900,000 per year for the three vessels. Because of the time element to build such craft, approximately a year and a half, it was indicated that in the current fiscal year no operating funds would be required. At no time was it indicated that the

money required for the operation of the vessels could be absorbed

Your account of the information given Congressman Gary on Thursday morning, as set forth at the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5, is substantially correct except that Mr. Gary, in my conversation with him, did not appear disturbed. He was merely attempting to ascertain the facts and finally, in reply to a direct question to me as to whether we had made an official request for the funds in question, received an equally direct answer in the negative. At no time was there any discussion of the Coast Guard going over the head of the committee, or did Mr. Gary at any time display any irritation, as you infer at several places in your letter.

Also, you should know that my appearance before Mr. Gary and the committee was on Tuesday, not Wednesday the day before, and therefore by your own chronology, about the time Congressman Kilgore was determining to attempt a supplemental request. (See last sentence, second paragraph, p. 2.) Therefore, with the facts before him, Mr. Gary had no reason to be surprised that this item had not been presented to his committee by the Coast Guard in its appearance on Tuesday. As to what Mr. Gary may have told the House conferees, as set out by you at the top of page 4, I, of course, have no way of knowing, but having had the pleasure of associating with Mr. Gary for a number of years, and knowing him fairly well, I would say that the remarks attributed by you to him are decidedly out of character.

There is one aspect of the whole matter which, in order to complete the record, I think should be added. Late Thursday afternoon I received a call at my office advising me that the administrative assistant to Congressman Kilgore had called saying that the $6 million appropriation was lost, but that there was language in the appropriation which directed us to carry out the patrol nonetheless. I immediately began to check because I felt that such language would be definitely objectionable to the Coast Guard, and restrictive on our operations. I learned quickly that I had been misinformed to the extent that the language was not appropriation language but was included in the report of the managers. While such language in the report would not have had the effect of law but since, if adopted, would have indicated the wishes of Congress, on learning that

the Senate had refused to accept the original report of the managers for other reasons, I did everything in my power to have the language modified to permit the Coast Guard administrative discretion. The language was subsequently changed to that as set out in your letter. Had this not been done the Coast Guard could only have met the original congressional direction by redeploying vessels from other areas, including the Pacific coast.

I regret that you feel that my replies to any of the questions asked were equivocating, or that the Coast Guard has a reputation with you or your associates for avoiding new duties. The Coast Guard welcomes new duties when properly directed by Congress. However, in discharging its duties the Coast Guard tries to give the maximum service for the money appropriated to it, and therefore does not have excess facilities that can be readily diverted to new and unplanned for undertakings.

Finally, let me say that the obtaining of the appropriation would in no way have changed the situation with respect to the maintenance of the patrol during the next few months. Throughout the whole matter it was pointed out that the vessels contemplated by the appropriation would not be available for at least 18 months, and during this period the Coast Guard could not, with the facilities available to it, continually maintain two patrols in the lower Gulf of Mexico without redeploying vessels from other areas, thus depriving those areas of their accustomed and needed protection.

In closing, may I say that, just as the fishing industry is proud of the trust enjoyed by it in Congress, so, too, is the Coast Guard proud of the trust that Congress reposes in it. So long as I have anything to do with the service, it will be my aim to give to any congressional inquiry the complete facts to the best of my ability.

As you will note, copies of this letter are being distributed to those Members of Congress to whom you sent copies of your letter. I would appreciate it if you would furnish me with a list of those members of your colleagues in the fishing industry to whom you provided copies of your letter in order that they also may be furnished with copies of my letter.

Sincerely yours,

A. C. RICHMOND,
Vice Admiral, USCG.

Mr. FELANDO. Thank you very much for the opportunity. The CHAIRMAN. The committee is adjourned until next Tuesday at 10.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene Tuesday, February 25, 1964, at 10 a.m.)

FISHING IN U.S. TERRITORIAL WATERS

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1964

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 219, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Herbert C. Bonner (chairman of the committee) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

The witness this morning is the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Adm. Edwin J. Roland, accompanied by Capt. G. R. Reynolds. You may proceed, Admiral.

STATEMENT OF ADM. EDWIN J. ROLAND, THE COMMANDANT, ACCOMPANIED BY CAPT. G. R. REYNOLDS, CHIEF, PORT SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, U.S. COAST GUARD

Admiral ROLAND. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before your committee to discuss the position of the Treasury Department on Senate Act 1988 which is designed to protect U.S. fisheries from foreign exploitation. There is a pressing need for this legislation.

The Coast Guard assists in the enforcement of most of the important U.S. fisheries conservation statutes and treaties. However, when we try to protect the fisheries inside the U.S. territorial seas from alien encroachment our hands are tied. A few marine species are protected by special statutes, but there is no effective law having broad application.

From the earliest times, the American fisheries have been restricted to vessels of the United States. Foreign vessels are also prevented from landing fish in the United States which they have caught on the high seas or which are transferred from other vessels on the high seas. Present law in this area is codified as section 251, title 46, United States Code. However, this law affords little protection to our resources, since it provides no penalty and foreign vessels can violate it with impunity. The Treasury Department does not consider it an equivalent to the proposed legislation, which addresses itself directly to the offense of poaching upon the fishery resources of the United States.

The Treasury Department believes that S. 1988, with the penalties provided, will be an excellent tool for preventing foreign fishing in U.S. waters. The urgent need for such a tool was recently demonstrated when the Coast Guard apprehended four Cuban vessels fishing in U.S. waters off Dry Tortugas. Although this was a flagrant violation of 46 U.S.C. 251, actually admitted by two of the Cuban

captains, investigation revealed no means by which a Federal penalty could be applied. Several incidents of illegal foreign fishing in U.S. waters off Alaska during 1963 show that the Dry Tortugas incident is not an isolated one and emphasize the need for a comprehensive Federal law with teeth.

The Treasury Department proposes two minor technical changes in the act. The first would change section 2(c) to bring the seizure and condemnation features of the bill into accord with the customs laws on this subject. The second would change section 3 (a) to vest responsibility for enforcement in the Secretaries of Treasury and Interior rather than in the Coast Guard, Customs Bureau, and Department of Interior. These changes are explained in more detail in the Treasury Department report on the act.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to my statement at this point that the Treasury report actually recommends four changes. I wanted to emphasize these two as being very important.

The Department believes that inclusion in the bill of the provisions relating to the fishery resources of the Continental Shelf may be premature. We understand these provisions may create problems of enforcement on the high seas which cannot immediately be resolved. The Department of State would be a more appropriate agency to comment on this. Because of the urgent need for the measures in the act relating to the territorial seas, Congress might consider it advisable to enact these measures now and defer acting on those relating to the Continental Shelf until a later date. Should Congress choose to return the provisions relating to the Continental Shelf, we believe it would be advantageous to rewrite the section dealing with the fishery resources appertaining to the United States to embrace the language of the Convention on the Continental Shelf (Geneva 1958). We also believe that the act should designate an officer of the Federal Government, most appropriately the Secretary of the Interior, to determine what species of marine life would qualify under the act. We believe that in the absence of such a determination prosecution of violators would be difficult.

Should this act become law, I must emphasize that the Coast Guard will not be able to start enforcing the Continental Shelf provisions immediately. Enforcement will have to wait until the species of marine life appertaining to the United States have been identified and until the problems of enforcement on the high seas have been resolved.

In conclusion, I should like to state that although we have reservations about the timing of the Continental Shelf provisions of S. 1988, we strongly support its purpose and recommend its early

enactment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tollefson.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The other departments, especially the State Department, have expressed concern over the Continental Shelf application of this legislation. This is a rather serious concern, is it not?

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir: it is for the reason that to us it is a new field of enforcement in which we have not been engaged before. Enforcement on the high seas is likely to cause some entanglements if it is not carefully thought out beforehand. This is the reason why

we suggest that, if the Continental Shelf provision is kept in this act, the language of the convention be included so as to give us a tool that we can use uniformly.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. This was a matter into which I inquired last week at the hearings: What about the nations that are not signatories to the convention? You would have some real problems there, would you not?

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. As a matter of curiosity, how far does the Continental Shelf extend out from Alaska if we use the convention definition of 200 meters of water depth above it?

Admiral ROLAND. Well, it varies. One of the witnesses who spoke here the other day said in some places it extends a hundred miles or more and in some places it is inside the 3-mile limit. I haven't looked into this matter but I am sure that both of those extremities are correct.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. So that there would be an extensive area to patrol in those places where the Continental Shelf might run out 100 miles? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lennon.

Mr. LENNON. Admiral, in the hearings last week, the Department of the Interior seemed to insist upon the right of recreational fishing by foreign vessels within our territorial waters of 3 miles. They likewise insisted upon the research fishing within our territorial waters of 3 miles by foreign vessels and also seemed to insist upon commercial fishing within our traditional 3 mile limit, all, of course, licensed. If any one of these categories were used, either recreation or research or commercial, how would that affect the enforcement by the Treasury Department?

Admiral ROLAND. I don't think it would have a serious effect. In any case, if we are investigating a vessel, we would board it and inspect its documents and if indicated we would search the vessel. If we were convinced that it was a research or recreation vessel or, if it was evident that it had a license granted under the terms of this bill as it now stands, we would simply leave.

Mr. LENNON. But it would require the boarding of every foreign vessel, within our 3-mile limit, to determine if it had a license?

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. Because it would be licensed in each of the three instances under the bill as now drawn.

Admiral ROLAND. There would be some additional work because. of this. It is a question of determining whether it is worth the extra work, I think.

Mr. LENNON. Canada has extended its territorial waters to 12 miles fairly recently.

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir; it intends to extend its jurisdiction, for fishing purposes, to 12 miles.

Mr. LENNON. But granting to those who historically fished within the 12-mile limit of Canada water to continue fishing, we would, of course, ostensibly, have the purpose of prohibiting at least two countries that we can easily think of from fishing. Great Britain, too, as of May 15, I believe, of this year, is also extending its territorial waters to 12 miles; is that true?