"""Fines imposed by district fishery conservation inspectors: not more than 250 rubles for each individual and not more than 2,000 rubles for each undertaking, institution, or organization; """Fines imposed by directors of fishery conservation and pisciculture departments (divisions) and their deputies: not more than 500 rubles for each individual and not more than 5,000 rubles for each undertaking, institution, or organization. ""An appeal against the imposition of a fine many be lodged within 14 days with the director next senior in rank, whose decision shall be final."'-Dr. Armins Rusis, European Law Division, Law Library, Library of Congress." Mr. BARTLETT. Since I started to speak, I note that the Junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], who was rather savagely attacked in the Soviet magazine, has entered the Chamber. I know he needs no defense from me; nevertheless, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is entitled to, and should, receive the very strongest commendation for his vigorous and proper support of the American fishing industry. As to the Russian publication charges against President Kennedy, they will receive serious consideration, I suggest, from no one. I suspect that this applies to the Soviet writers as well as to everyWhat the President is seeking to do is to build every segment of American society, to improve the lot of all people everywhere, and to insure peace. Finally, as a member of the Commerce Committee, I have been gratified because time after time when legislation concerning the fishing industry has come before that committee, the junior Senator from Massachusetts has appeared as a witness and has given very effective and helpful testimony and has made it easier to report and pass legislation so urgently needed if the American fishing industry is to survive, much less make progress. one else. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BARTLETT. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KENNEDY. The junior Senator from Massachusetts recognizes the outstanding contribution the Senator from Alaska has made, not only in regard to this important phase of protecting our fishing industry, and of providing our various Federal agencies with the means for essential law enforcement against any of the trespasses by the Soviet Union, or by any other nation, in violation of the territorial waters of the United States, but I think the Senator from Alaska has also provided outstanding leadership in directing this problem to the attention of the Senate and really providing a platform for the fishing industry to bring into international focus the great needs of our fishing industry. I come here as a junior Senator from a State that realizes the importance of the fishing industry in my home State of Massachusetts, but also recognizes that this problem involves not merely the State of Massachusetts, but the entire eastern seaboard, the gulf coast, the western coast, and also the State of Alaska, which today plays a primary role in providing the American people the benefits of the sea. It is always with true humility that I come before the Commerce Committee and testify before the Senator's subcommittee with regard to legislation dealing with the fishing industry, because we recognize in the State of Massachusetts, as I know personally, the truly outstanding contribution the Senator from Alaska has made. Once more today, on the floor of the Senate, the Senator from Alaska has presented outstanding examples of violations of territorial waters of the United States. He has brought forth significant evidence on the importance of these violations. I think it is incumbent upon all Members of the Senate to recognize that this situation demands the kind of legislation which has been proposed by the Senator from Alaska, and in which I am indeed delighted to participate. Mr. BARTLETT. I am grateful to the Senator from Massachusetts for what he has had to say. What concerns me, in addition to many other things, and I am sure what concerns the Senator from Massachusetts, is the great probability that if the maritime nations of the world are not prudent, this priceless resource, protein from the sea, will not be available for future populations and future generations. There Fishing efforts have expanded enormously in the last 15 years. We do not know, generally speaking, whether there is a condition of overfishing now. may be. What we do know is that it may rapidly approach. Indeed, I am confident the time is now when the maritime nations of the world must get together and must join in research and in appropriate conservation measures, lest these resources, which otherwise can be made renewable forever, will have totally disappeared. (Letters and statements submitted for the record:) NATIONAL SHRIMP CONGRESS, Washington, D.C., September 11, 1963. S. 1988, PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION AND THE U.S. SHRIMP INDUSTRY The most amazing and rapid change in national policy in the histor of the U.S. fishing industry is exemplified in S. 1988 on which hearings were held on September 5 and 6, 1963, before Senator Bartlett's subcommittee. Witnesses for the Departments of State, Interior, Navv, and Coast Guard (Treasury) blessed and approved the objectives of the bill, to prohibit foreign fishing in U.S. territorial waters and in certain other areas. The Northwest and Northeast cried for protection. One lonesome voice from the tuna fishery evidenced some alarm over stringent provisions in the bill authorizing the imprisonment of offending foreign crews. Tuna had not forgotten that their distant fishing vessels and crewmen were subjected to seizures in the Southeast Pacific, and thought that the bill should be tempered somewhat, perhaps to avoid retaliation. The nations which are at odds with the U.S. tuna fleet do not fish in U.S. waters. Sanctions intended primarily for the Soviets and the Japanese will not resolve the problem of the tuna fleet. The only sanction which will help the U.S. tuna fisherman is the economic one, such as proposed by Congressman Van Deerlin (H.R. 6656) and Senator Engle (S. 1651) which would authorize the President to impose an embargo on anv fish or fish products from countries which harass U.S. fishermen on the high seas. There is also Congressman Pelly's bill (H.R. 7815) and others of similar scope. The domestic shrimp industry can join other U.S. fisheries in approving the basic intent of S. 1988. Federal protection is greatly needed. The undersigned, on behalf of the shrimp industry, proposed and helped to pass protective legislation (H.B. 942) in the recent session of the Florida Legislature, but the capacity of individual States to deal with this matter is severely limited. UNITED STATES BECOMING COASTAL STATE As we now rapidly join the "coastal states" in sudden and rabid protectionist measures, the voice of the shrimp industry must be raised and heard to point out certain dangers inherent in this period of transition, not to oppose the overwhelming trend, but to caution the lawmakers not to destroy by inadvertence the only distant-fishing fleets proudly carrying the U.S. flag-tuna and shrimp. THE SHRIMP FISHERY Shrimp is and has been for 12 years the No. 1 U.S. fishery in dollar value. The investment in the fleet, the number of persons deriving livelihood, and the value to the U.S. economy from shrimp fishing is important. While no State is as dependent upon fishing as is Alaska, there are entire sections and communities of the South Atlantic and Gulf States which rely heavily on the shrimp industry. Every coastal southern Senator and Congressman is aware of these conditions in his home State. The "domestic" shrimp fleet is composed of nearly 7,000 vessels and boats. In this complex which comprises "domestic" production, the catch made by U.S.flag vessels is roughly divided as follows: (a) Local and coastwise trawlers which fish only close to United States, accounting for approximately 80.3 percent of the catch. (b) Distant-fishing trawlers (2 to 6 weeks at sea) based in U.S. ports but fishing the western Gulf of Mexico, which account for approximately 15.5 percent of the catch. (c) U.S.-flag trawlers based in British, French, and Dutch Guiana, which account for approximately 4.2 percent of the catch. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries reports for the year 1962 disclose the following: The fishery in the Guianas is expanding. During the period January-July 1963 French Guiana production was 549,000 pounds. Total Guiana production for 7 months was 4,799,000. Item (b), distant fishing, at times has accounted for as much as 27 percent of the U.S.-flag catch in years when U.S. coast production faltered. Any reduction of shrimp fishing in areas (b) and (c) inevitably results in an impossible concentration of too many U.S.-flag vessels on the home grounds, resulting in complete economic disaster. While the shrimp fishery is not regulated by international treaties to maintain the proper exploitation of available stock (such as halibut and salmon) it has achieved an almost perfect position in that available stocks are being fully taken to insure the "maximum sustainable yield" consistent with true conservation of the resources. As an annual crop, there is a new yield each year. If our distant-fishing fleets cannot continue abroad, their return and concentration on local stocks would have dire conservation effects, as well as economic disaster. It is the larger, more efficient, bigger net vessels which go abroad. S. 1988 AND SHRIMP The critique on any legislation made by the shrimp industry must be based on the foregoing essential elements. Protection can help the shrimp industry. Overprotection can kill it, we believe. None of the 50 or more countries which export shrimp to the United States trawl for shrimp near the U.S. territorial seas. Of these exporters, only one nation, Japan, is in any way likely to be affected by S. 1988. RELATIONS WITH MEXICO Mexico has shown great forbearance and a sophisticated approach to the problems of shrimp fishing in the western gulf. U.S. fishermen, in turn, by gentlemen's agreement, have endeavored to stay beyond the 9-nautical-mile limit asserted by Mexico, and the trawlers of these two nations fish side by side or nearby in peace and amity while the shrimp industries of these two nations combine through the Shrimp Association of the Americas jointly to develop the industry and the market and to sponsor good conservation procedures. The shrimp industry sees no danger in the application of protective measures by the Federal Government in U.S. waters. Mexico has similar laws and protects its fisheries wisely. FINE AND FORFEITS (SEC. 2(a)) The economic loss to a vessel owner of losing his catch, nets, and paying fines and being subject to delays is nominally sufficient to make it unprofitable and unwise to trespass in the territorial sea of another nation. Fines assessed against the vessel are a more satisfactory procedure than fines assessed against the crew, because the value of the vessel assures payment of the fines, else the hull forfeits. Fishermen generally go to sea for a proportion of the catch, and none get rich by it. It is likely that some owners of vessels (whether private or government) would allow the imprisoned crew to rot in jail rather than ransom them, usually on the premise that the owner instructed the master and crew to stay out of trouble, and that the seizure is the master's (or crew's) fault. 23-530-63- 9 THE TERRITORIAL SEA Neither of the U.N. Geneva Conventions on Law of the Sea in 1958 or in 1960 resolved the width of the territorial sea. The writer was present at both. Under international law no unilateral declaration of one nation is binding on any other nation which wishes to reject it. These "laws" are made by agreement or consent. It is true that in the uncertain area of the width of the territorial sea there are various claims by various nations. Within reasonable limits there is a general tacit understanding and some respect. If the Soviets are willing to fight to preserve their claim of 12 miles it is not likely that we will invoke nuclear power to dispute it. The unreasonable claims of Peru, Ecuador, and Chile to 200 miles in the South Pacific are not seriously taken by the family of nations, least of all by the U.S. Government. As leaders of the free world and paragons of law and order, any unreasonable unilateral action taken by the United States will only lend substance to the unrealistic claims of other countries. Further, although the Department of Defense will endorse a reasonable protection of U.S. fishermen, it will rise in alarm and wrath at any suggestion of enlarging the territorial sea, as we fishermen well know. THE CONTINENTAL SHELF There is absolute danger to the shrimp industry in any interpretation of the Continental Shelf which does not completely comply with the convention on the Continental Shelf as adopted in Geneva in 1958, and which has been ratified by 21 nations and the 22d signatory is imminent to bring it into full force as to the contracting parties. There were some glib references to this matter in the testimony before this committee, and the shrimp industry respectfully suggests that the full text of the convention be examined thoroughly and included in the record. For clarification and emphasis, article I of the convention states its limits to be "outside the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres, or beyond that limit to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas ***." The reason the Conference did not stop at a given depth was because modern techniques are expanding to where it might be feasible to drill for oil at 2,000 fathoms. "Natural resources" is not confined to oil and minerals-but also living organisms, as very specifically defined in article II-"organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or subsoil." This quoted section is life or death to the shrimp industry. Shrimp are exempt from this careful definition, and purposely so. Emphasis is also placed on the following part of article II (4) of the convention: "The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this article are exclusive in the sense that if the coastal State does not explore the Continental Shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one [else] may undertake these activities ***." Any unreasonable interpretation of the doctrine of the Continental Shelf could well be fallacious and injurious, for example: (1) Claiming an area and being physically unable to police it or patrol it. This is now true of the 200-mile territorial sea claim in the Southeast Pacific. (2) Claiming an area (or a resource) and then not fully exploiting the resources in it. Certain sea products cannot be sold in our markets. Certain sea products cannot economically be harvested and since we depend on private capital, they would lie fallow and unused. (3) The world is hungry for protein, and the United States cannot be placed in the position of denying unused and unneeded sea resources which it does not propose to harvest. The great difficulty in regulating fish is that the fish do not recognize latitude and longitude, nor do they care about the width of the territorial sea. In a perfect world we would have good biological information on each "stock" of fishspawning, migration, mortality. Wise laws would be based upon conservation, and would vary as to species and stocks. The shrimp fishing industry's control of local stocks, from State to State, attempts to base management and conservation on the particular stocks in particular areas, and intense biological work, as well as exploitation, indicates that we have reasonably good conservation practices which should assure good annual yields forever. They could not withstand the overfishing which must result if we lost our distant fishing grounds. There is attached a reduced photocopy of Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 1009, Gulf of Mexico. Modern shrimp trawlers go where the shrimp may be found, and the bulk of the catch is from 10 fathoms outward to 40 or 50. No concentrations of shrimp in deep water (Royal Reds) have been discovered sufficient to be economically harvested, a process which requires large vessels, heavier cables, larger winches, and considerable other expenses. The lifeblood is in that 10 to 50 fathoms offshore and usually ideal trawling is in the 15 to 30 fathom range. In the western gulf there is a good fishing ground in this area, which commences about 9 miles off the coast, although there is much good fishing ground also inside 9 miles. U.S. shrimp fishermen by the thousands earn their living here and make a valuable contribution to the national economy. Both the United States and Mexico have fully developed shrimp fishing fleets and they jointly use much of the grounds. Mexico is also the largest exporter of shrimp to the U.S. shrimp market, which, like most domestic fisheries, requires some imports to meet consumer demands. CONCLUSION A. The needs and requirements of the several U.S. fisheries vary, but they have common ground and can survive only by concert and agreement. In devising measures which strengthen or protect one fishery, they should not coincidentally destroy another. B. The basic effort to protect domestic fisheries against foreign encroachment, as in S. 1988, deserves the support of all segments of the domestic fishing industry. C. No unilateral extension of the territorial sea is proper under international law, and is contrary to the defense interests of the United States. D. A moderate extension of the fishing zone to protect specific stocks or species of fish historically or customarily fished by U.S. fishing vessels, and essential to the domestic market, is a reasonable exercise of the power of local government when based upon sound scientific premise and when kept within those limits favored by a majority of nations at the U.S. Conference on Law of the Sea, Geneva, 1960, limited to 12 miles from shore. E. Legislation should not connect the Continental Shelf doctrine to fisheries, WILLIAM R. NEBLETT, (NOTE.-Mr. Neblett's report included Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 1007, showing the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean area marine depths. It was not reproducible, but those who wish to refer to it in reference to the foregoing text may secure a copy from the Survey (price, $1.)) U.S. COAST GUARD, Washington, D.C., August 5, 1963. Memorandum for Mr. William Foster, staff attorney, office of the Honorable E. L. Bartlett. Subject: Soviet fishing vessel off Alaska. 1. This confirms our telephone conversation at 5:45 p.m., Friday, August 2. 2. The following information was received from commander, 17th Coast Guard district: "July 29-Alaska Fish and Game representative Nakchamik Island reported two Soviet whale catcher boats operating 1 mile north of Nakchamik Island and additional catcher and mother ship off Sutwik Island on south shore Alaskan Peninsula on July 28. "On July 30 four whale killers were sighted 11⁄2 miles west of Nakchamik Island by Kodiak Airways pilot and Alaska Fish and Game pilot. "Both reports were not forwarded to the Coast Guard until 24 hours had lapsed. Both incidents were investigated by aircraft from CGAD, Kodiak, however only vessels sighted were well outside territorial waters. "Have directed Northwind, Astoris, and Winona to patrol area while transitting area during course of routine OPS en route Bering Sea patrol areas." |