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

nations. We are reaching a point where we are beginning to appear foolhardy and blind to the realities of the situation. Russia has a 12-mile limit and there are many Japanese fishermen now being held by the Soviet Government who can attest to the fact that the Russians have no hesitations about enforcing this claim.

I don't mean to digress. The purpose of this hearing is not to discuss an extension of fishing rights, but to find an effective means to protect those that we now have. The truth is, however, that these are pretty much a part of the same problem.

Part of this problem, too, is our outdated fishing fleet. It is 10 to 20 years behind the times in all but a few isolated areas of the industry. We can legislate the Russians and Cubans out of our inshore waters and even assert, as this bill does, our claim to certain fishery resources of the Continental Shelf, well beyond the limits of our territorial sea, but this obviously isn't the whole answer. We also are going to authorize and appropriate funds for new and more modern Coast Guard cutters to help back up these legal claims. But all this will be meaningless in the crucial years ahead if our fishing industry lacks the basic equipment to harvest these rich food resources efficiently and economically. That is why I feel that it is so important that the bill we are considering today be closely followed by action on the fishing vessel construction legislation pending in this committee.

These bills mean a great deal to the people of my district, because fishing means a great deal. I am privileged to represent in Congress an area that has been prominent throughout American history as a center of commercial fishing. The district includes Cape Cod and the coastal towns of Plymouth County to Boston Harbor; Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket and the famous port of New Bedford, which was world famous, of course, in the era of the whaling ship and which today leads the east coast in total value of fish landings.

The whale has been replaced by the flounder and scallop. The city is now the scallop capital of the world. This is why fishing is so important to us and why the intensifying activity of foreign fleets close off our shores has been viewed with very grave concern. The people of my district have called for effective countermeasures. That is why I filed this bill. It can lay the groundwork for a clear national policy aimed at protecting American fisheries and for subsequent legislation, such as the vessel construction bill, that will help make our industry more competitive with those totalitarian "Kombinats" off Cape Cod.

Mr. Chairman, I think that you truly have to see this Russian fishing operation firsthand to fully appreciate the threat it poses. Last fall I got on a plane and flew out beyond Nantucket and saw for myself one of these fleets at work. It was an awesome sight. It stretched from one horizon to the other and I lost count when I got to 75 vessels. Some of them were the 3,500-ton factory trawlers, with their Baltic crews and Russian reserve naval officers aboard, and their sophisticated electronic listening and sounding devices. These ships not only catch great amounts of fish that would otherwise have been hauled aboard American vessels one day, they process it right on board. They fillet it, freeze in the round and in blocks, grind it up-the frames, heads and tails— for fish meal and even, I am told, have the equipment aboard in some cases to make and package medical preparations out of the oil and certain of the fish organs.

My first impression of this fleet. I recall, was stirred by its silent, purposeful, businesslike manner. It looked like a navy task force, or perhaps like the great echelons of self-propelled combines we see pictured in Kansas wheatfields. It was systematically harvesting the fishing banks with fine-mesh nets that leave little behind for other vessels or for other seasons.

The greatest tribute to their devastating thoroughness, as I noted in the Senate hearings, is that unlike our boats-you don't find sea gulls following the Russian ships. There is nothing left even for the birds. If they go on as they are doubling their fishing operations every few years-we won't have to worry about selling them wheat. Think of the pressure this successful operation takes off their faltering farm program.

I could go on at great length on this subject, of course, but I appreciate that time is limited and that you have many other witnesses. As a member of the committee, I know that you are aware of the extent of the Russian threat and share my concern and the concern of the fishermen in my district.

At this point, I would sum up by saying that I strongly support this legislation as a step in the right direction. Its enactment has been made appropriate by a situation that has been forced upon us. It is time now for Congress to express the sentiments that I believe most Americans share, and take a firm stand against further infringements on our rights.

With respect to the amendments in the bill as passed by the Senate (S. 1988), I believe that the provisions relating to claims to fishery resources on the Continental Shelf are extremely important and will establish a basis for possible further action to define and protect our interests in this area.

The Senate-passed version strikes the phrase "claimed by" and inserts instead "which appertains to." Since this language is consistent with the principles embodied in the United Nations Convention on the Continental Shelf, I would favor this amendment to the bill that I filed, H.R. 8296, along with all other changes incorporated in the final Senate bill, with the single exception of the amendment that would grant to the Secretary of the Treasury the right to license foreign vessels to fish in our waters and to land fish in our ports.

I understand the purpose of this provision and that it was included at the request of the Department of State and had the concurrence of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Fishermen in my district don't like this provision, however. They think it is too broad and I agree. We've never, to my knowledge, permitted foreign vessels to land fish directly in U.S. ports and I don't see why we should start now. The whole purpose of this bill is remedial, to at last clearly prohibit foreign-flag fishing operations in our waters, not to slip in loopholes in the law that never before existed and which could open the door to practices we have specifically guarded against since the earliest days of our Government (46 U.S.C. 251).

If this research vessel of the U.N. Special Fund-which I understand has taken on a research project in the Caribbean-is the object of this amendment, then we should make specific provision for its operation, not write in a blanket authority for the Secretary of the Treasury or anyone else to issue licenses to foreign vessels counter to the whole purpose of this bill. If we have exceptional circumstances, as the State Department suggests may be the case in the future, then we can take exceptional action and make provision for them at the time. I see no need for this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and neither do leading spokesmen of the fishing industry in Massachusetts.

In this regard, I would like to offer for the record of the hearings the following letter from Mr. Hugh O'Rourke, executive secretary of the Boston Fisheries Association, Inc.

Also for the record, this wire from Mr. Frank Bachoff, of Rockland, Mass., chairman of the Massachusetts Marine Commission.

In further support of H.R. 8296, and the other bills now before the committee, I respectfully submit for your consideration an editorial from the February 14, 1964, Boston Herald, "Fishing in Troubled Waters"; an editorial from the New Bedford Standard-Times, entitled, "The Undefined Sea," which discusses the matter of territorial limits; and an article from Newsweek magazine entitled, "Nothing for the Birds."

Fishermen in my district have had, in many cases, direct contact with the Soviet fleets operating off the New England coast. I would like to include in the record photocopies of several letters I have recently received from these fishermen and from the Seafood Producers Association of New Bedford, with regard to this legislation.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I offer to the committee the text of a letter from a man who not only is a fishing vessel owner and captain operating out of New Bedford, but a man who escaped from behind the Iron Curtain some years ago. He recognizes, perhaps more than do we, the menace that is inherent in the Kombinats that have moved in and taken over on Georges Bank and the Nantucket Shoals. Because he still has friends and family behind the Iron Curtain, I will withhhold his name from the public record and will simply quote his letter at this point.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman; that concludes my statement.

(The attachments mentioned follow :)

BOSTON FISHERIES ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Boston, Mass., February 17, 1964.

Hon. HASTINGS KEITH,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE KEITH: The Boston Fisheries Association is interested in passage of bill S. 1988, which is being heard by the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Herbert C. Bonner, chairman, Wednesday and Thursday, February 19 and 20.

I have written to Congressman Bonner advising him that the Boston Fisheries Association is concerned about one section of the bill; namely, page 2 beginning line 1 and ending line 9. This section of the bill apparently would permit foreign fishing vessels to land their catch in an American port, whether they were engaged in research or any other field of endeavor. We believe that this amendment would eventually permit fishing boats of other nations to sell their catch under the subterfuge of being connected with a research fishing project.

With more than 50 percent of the fish consumed in this country imported, it behooves the Massachusetts fishing industry to be alert and to offer objections to any form of legislation that would serve to place greater economic stress upon a hard-hit industry.

I appreciate the interest that you have shown in fishery legislation and trust that pending bills, such as S. 1988, S. 627, and S. 1006, will be favorably considered by the House committee as they are vitally important to the Boston fishing industry.

Sincererly yours,

HUGH F. O'ROURKE,
Executive Secretary.

[Telegram]

ROCKLAND, MASS., February 17, 1964.

Congressman HASTINGS KEITH,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.:

Wish to be recorded as violently opposed amendment to S. 1988, allowing foreign vessels and others do research within our 3-mile territorial waters hearing on February 19 and 20 before Merchant Marine Committee.

FRANK BACHOFF, Chairman, Massachusetts Marine Commission.

[From the Boston Herald, Feb. 14, 1964]

FISHING IN TROUBLED WATERS

The U.S. House should give prompt support to a bill sponsored by Bay State Representative Hastings Keith providing stricter Federal controls over foreign fishing boats operating in American waters.

The Cuban boats seized by the Coast Guard off the Dry Tortugas last week were fishing in restricted waters in violation of U.S. law. But the U.S. law provided no penalties, so boats and crews were turned over to Florida authorities for action under State law.

In the normal course such an arrangement would have been acceptable. Florida courts are just as capable of dealing with poachers as Federal courts

are.

But the seized boats being Cuban, the course was not normal. The seizure became an international incident. Cuba protested to the United Nations and cut off the water supply from our naval base at Guantanamo Bay. The crisis has now simmered down a little, but it could still be troublesome.

Clearly the Federal Government would have been in a stronger position if it, instead of the Florida government, had been prosecuting the fishermen.

The Keith bill, if it becomes law, will permit the Federal Government to take full control in future international poaching cases. When a similar measure passed the Senate last October, the sponsors were chiefly concerned with the

policing of offshore waters. The Federal Government was better equipped, they thought, to run down the foreign poachers than the States were. But the Dry Tortugas case has brought the prosecution question to the fore.

Some southern Senators were a little reluctant to yield any more State prerogatives to the Federal Government. The latest incident should convince them that the States will be well rid of cases that involve touchy international relations.

The Keith-Bartlett bill does not preempt fishing waters control for the Federal Government. It simply supplies another-and safer-enforcement procedure where foreign interests are involved. The House should approve it without further delay.

[From the Standard-Times, New Bedford, Mass., Oct. 30, 1963]

THE UNDEFINED SEA

When one more nation affixes its signature, the agreement known as the International Convention on the Continental Shelf will take effect. This treaty gives sovereign rights over shelf resources to the nearest bordering country, yet initially it is likely to produce more questions than answers.

The agreement reemphasizes the growing need for the United States to seek clearer definition, not only of the scope and boundaries of its Continental Shelf resources, but of its territorial limits in general.

Early in our history, we, and many other nations, informally accepted 3 miles as a suitable limit to our territorial waters. At that time, 3 miles was about the maximum distance a shore-based cannon could fire a cannonball. In other words, it was approximately the distance the adjacent seas could be defended from a nation's shores.

Times and technology have changed, but in the United States we continue to consider 3 miles seaward the limit of our territorial waters, not on the basis of any law but by custom or tradition.

Congress never has fixed the width of the sea territory under our sovereign control by statute, nor is there international agreement on this question.

Many other countries have departed from the 3-mile "legend," which had its beginnings in another age.

Soviet Russia and Iceland claim 12 miles, and Mexico, 9 miles.

Norway has a 4-mile limit, but also asserts jurisdiction over waters out to 12 miles for fishing purposes.

Canada has a 3-mile limit, but is extending its territorial waters to 12 miles in May 1964.

Denmark observes a 3-mile limit for its home waters, but has established a 12-mile protected fishing zone for Greenland and has announced a similar zone around the Faroe Islands will be maintained next year.

Ecuador, Chile, and Peru have entered into a tripartite agreement to claim jurisdiction over fisheries in waters outward to 200 miles from their shores.

In recent years, the Russians particularly have been indifferent as to where their right to fish the high seas ends and where the U.S. jurisdiction over our territorial waters begins.

National interests require our Government to reconsider the extent of these sovereign seas. Military, as well as economic considerations compel a broadening of our jurisdiction.

It is significant that the recent Senate-passed bill providing penalties for violation of our territorial waters "leaves the question of the extent of (these waters) completely flexible and open to any adjustment Congress or the administration may wish to make."

The question, long ignored, requires official resolution without delay.

[From Newsweek, Sept. 16, 1963]

NOTHING FOR THE BIRDS

"We are engaged in economic warfare with the Communist bloc," was the warning of Representative Hastings Keith, of Massachusetts, last week, "and we must come to realize that Georges Bank and Nantucket Shoals are battlegrounds in this war."