and of intelligence supplied by the U.S. fishing fleet, should be able to prevent any significant exploitation of fishery resources in U.S. territorial waters by foreign fishing vessels. Due to the great length of the U.S. coastline and the isolation of much of it, particularly in the State of Alaska, even with a great increase in Coast Guard forces we would not be able to guarantee that occasional incursions into U.S. waters would not occur. However, the drastic penalties provided by this bill should make such incursions a poor gamble. In conclusion, the Treasury Department believes that this bill with the changes recommended above would be a valuable addition to the conservation laws of the United States. Senator BARTLETT. Naturally, Admiral Roland, the committee is delighted to have the general endorsement of the Treasury Department, which you have submitted. Speaking for myself, in respect to the specific amendments which you have suggested, I applaud them, endorse them, and I think that they will be accepted without any question. We understand the problems that would confront the Coast Guard in respect to this Continental Shelf matter, but a State Department witness will follow you shortly. I have only one question and that is speaking of Alaska, which I like to speak of quite frequently, are your Coast Guard vessels there fast enough to overtake these foreign fishing vessels? Admiral ROLAND. Not all of them. In most cases they are. As you are probably aware, Senator, in the last year and a half a pretty thorough study of our roles and missions was made by a group which was principally from outside of the Coast Guard. And in general, we came out pretty well on this. But one of the faults that were found with us was in our law enforcement activity and particularly in the fishery business. As a result of this, and because of other needs, we have a program now that in a number of years will replace a lot of the equipment which we now have. Particularly we have a vessel replacement program. The new vessels which are in this program will provide us with very good tools for this sort of work. The vessels we are using now, some of them are quite antique. But generally I would say we have enough speed to overtake these vessels, but there are exceptions and there are some which we have failed to catch, some that we have chased. Senator BARTLETT. You have persuaded me this program is a good one, if the Coast Guard has ships that aren't fast enough to overtake fishing vessels, you should have new and faster ones. Senator MAGNUSON? The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, leaving out any directive under an International Fisheries Convention, what do you consider or what does the Coast Guard consider to be the width of our territorial waters? Admiral ROLAND. The territorial waters? Three miles. The CHAIRMAN. How do you arrive at the 3-mile figure? The CHAIRMAN. Would you put in the record, or have your legal staff put in the record the basis, how you arrive at the 3-mile figure? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, we will submit that for the record. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in compliance with your request during hearings of your subcommittee on September 5, 1963, that the Coast Guard explain its reasons for recognizing 3 miles as the limit of the U.S. territorial sea. In carrying out its responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States upon the high seas and waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction, the Coast Guard must often interpret legislation which either explicitly or by implication extends only to the limits of the territorial waters. One statute, for instance, prohibits the taking of halibut within the U.S. territorial waters by persons other than nationals or inhabitants of the United States. (Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1937 (50 Stat. 326, 16 USC 772(b)). In applying such statutes to particular situations the Coast Guard is guided by judicial determinations of the extent of territorial waters and by statements of executive policy on the matter. A case arising under the Submerged Lands Act (67 Stat. 29, 43 USC 1301 et. seq.) considered the question whether States' rights to exploitation of submerged lands within their boundaries would conflict with executive policy regarding relations with foreign countries, if such State boundaries were held to extend beyond 3 nautical miles. United States v. Louisiana, 363 US 1 (1960). In passing on this question the Supreme Court recognized the duty of the executive to determine the geographical limit to the territorial sea: The President, on the "The power to admit new States resides in Congress. other hand, is the constitutional representative of the United States in its dealing with foreign nations. From the former springs the power to establish State boundaries; from the latter comes the power to determine how far this country will claim territorial rights in the marginal sea as against other nations. (United States v. Louisiana, 363 US 1, 35 (1960)." Executive expressions of policy on the subject have uniformly upheld the 3-mile limit. The principle was first asserted by Thomas Jefferson in a note to Great Britain in 1793. (Reprinted in House Ex. Doc. No. 324, 42d Cong., 2d sess. (1872), p. 553-554) În diplomatic dealings the executive branch has adhered to this policy. The Deputy Legal Advisor, Department of State, so testified before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on March 4, 1953. (S. Doc. 1035, p. 1051–1053). A recent reaffirmation of the policy was issued to the 1960 Law of the Sea Conference at Geneva by the chairman of the U.S. delegation. He stated that the 3-mile rule is and will continue to be established international law, to which the United States adheres. It is, he said, the only breadth of territorial sea on which there has ever been anything like common agreement, and the United States has no obligation to recognize claims of other nations to a greater breadth. (U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 19/8, p. 34) The Coast Guard has received no indication from the Department of State that the above executive policy will be changed. Present programs of law enforcement and budgetary planning are based on the assumption that the policy will be continued. Sincerely yours, E. J. ROLAND, Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant. The CHAIRMAN. I think it is very important to find out just exactly how we at one time arrived at it. Admiral ROLAND. I might add for U.S. vessels, of course, our laws apply wherever they are. The CHAIRMAN. That would be by rules and regulations. But what do we consider the width of our territorial waters? The Coast Guard has to follow, of course, the tradition and law and the custom. I say that this bill may be the beginning. Admiral ROLAND. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. The existing procedure might have been fine 35 or 40 or 50 or 100 years ago, but for today's fishing purposes, it is surely inadequate. Admiral ROLAND. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Other nations in the world, for their fishing purposes, think so too, including some of those we have been talking about here today. Admiral ROLAND. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I have no other questions. I think the amendments you suggested are very important. What are you doing up in Alaska now? I, too, like to talk about Alaska. Did you say the commander is making a study up there? Admiral ROLAND. Yes. During this past season-you know we run an Alaska fisheries patrol, as well as a Bering Sea patrol every year in Alaska. During this past season, we have beefed up this patrol, the Alaska fisheries patrol, by bringing in aircraft from other districts. Well this hurts the other districts, of course, but we wanted to actually test what we need out there. Well, Commander Kelly has made a study-the season is of course drawing to a close now-he has made a study as to our permanent needs up there, in both vessels and aircraft, if we are to continue the level of patrol we have had this year, and he has determined our needs, if this is a seasonal thing or if it is a year-round patrol. The CHAIRMAN. Commander Kelly, did the east Bering Sea halibut decision have any bearing on the requirement for more patrol by the Coast Guard, both by air and by water? Commander KELLY. Yes, Senator; I would say that it does. The CHAIRMAN. I refer, of course, to the extra patrols required by the change in the North Pacific International Fisheries Convention. Commander KELLY. Yes. The areas requiring patrols are defined by the conventions in effect. And once this has been established, a certain level of enforcement must be accomplished. So in answer to that, the answer would be, "Yes, it did increase the area requiring patrol." The CHAIRMAN. Do you go out as far as the 175th meridian on the salmon? Commander KELLY. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Do you go beyond the 175th? Commander KELLY. I believe the requirement for patrol is completely to the east of the 175th meridian. The CHAIRMAN. It is, but I wondered if you ever went beyond. for the purposes of information? Commander KELLY. No, sir. Our patrol areas do not require us to go further for any reason. The CHAIRMAN. So your directive is only to that particular point, as far as the salmon fishery is concerned? Admiral ROLAND. As far as the law enforcement is concerned. I am sure we do go beyond to make observations. The CHAIRMAN. This is mainly aircraft, isn't it? Admiral ROLAND. Aerial; yes. The CHAIRMAN. What have you found, or what are your plans for the Gulf of Alaska, now that we find encroachment in there? Incidentally, I am glad you mentioned the word "poach" in here. This bill should be known as the beginning of an antipoaching legislation. What are your plans in the Gulf of Alaska, where there recently has been encroachment and poaching by fleets of other nations? Commander KELLY. The patrol areas defined again in the southern part of Alaska and it includes the territorial waters around through the Kodiak area. Here the area is expanded into the gulf, but not a complete coverage of the gulf. This then is extended farther in the territorial waters along the Aleutian chain. Toward the tip of the Aleutian chain there is a large square area which requires patrol because of the fishing concentrations. This area then extends from the end of the Alaska peninsula, up toward the Pribilof Islands, and from there back to the Alaska mainland to the east. This latter area encompasses the Bering Sea, of course. And these are the areas that have been specified this year for patrol and, of course, there have been emergent requirements, such as the one you referred to, where special investigation is given when a specific incident occurs in these areas. The CHAIRMAN. And you would get your information about specific incidents in two or three ways. Sometimes as the admiral points out, intelligence from the fishermen themselves, sometimes your own surveillance will point out something that is happening, and then you go out and take a look at that. If the United States followed out the Truman proclamation on the Bering shelf, would your present patrol cover that area? Commander KELLY. Yes. The area we are now patroling. The CHAIRMAN. That square would about cover that, wouldn't it, that you handle now? Commander KELLY. The Continental Shelf The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about the Bering Sea shelf; yes. Commander KELLY. It extends from the end of the Alaska peninsula, by the Pribilof Islands, on a line that angles off in that direction. The patrol area now described gives surveillance to that area at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. Would it extend south and east of the Pribilofs? Commander KELLY. The Continental Shelf does not extend out into that area. The CHAIRMAN. But would you go north of the Pribilofs at all? Commander KELLY. No, sir; our air surveillance does not go north of the Pribilof at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. So if we said we are going to stick to the Continental Shelf declaration, you would have to add a patrol up there? Commander KELLY. This is true. Admiral ROLAND. This would depend somewhat on what we say we are trying to protect on the Continental Shelf. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it would depend on what species of fish or what is happening up there in that area. But you do not now, as I understand it, unless there is some special instance, in the so-called heart of the Gulf of Alaska, patrol much of that area, do you? Commander KELLY. Our patrols as specified now are air patrolsThe CHAIRMAN. Pretty much along the cost and out, rather than in the so-called heart of the Gulf of Alaska? Commander KELLY. Right. I might say we have ships that we rotate into the Alaskan area out of Seattle. And they make passage on these coming and going to the area. The CHAIRMAN. They go through the area, but there would be no regular patrol? Commander KELLY. Yes; only on a selective basis. The CHAIRMAN. On a selective basis? Commander KELLY. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I have no further questions. Senator BARTLETT. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Senator BARTLETT. We thank you, Admiral Roland. Senator BARTLETT. The next witness will be one who has flown here clear from Alaska to testify-Alaska has a certain interest in this legislation, a very considerable interest. We will now hear from Edward S. Marvich, deputy commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. STATEMENT OF EDWARD S. MARVICH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Mr. MARVICH. My name is Edward S. Marvich, deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss S. 1988-a bill to prohibit and provide penalties for foreign fishing in the territorial waters of the United States and in certain other areas. It is extremely gratifying to see the leadership provided by you and your colleagues in seeing that this bill is presented to the Congress. Time is of the essence. I trust the Congress will look favorably on this bill and look forward to its early enactment into law. The Federal Government plays the primary role in enforcing commercial fishing regulations and laws on the high seas in connection with our international agreements. It is of paramount importance that Federal agencies be provided with basic statutory authority to enforce laws and regulations pertaining to fishing by foreign nationals within the territorial limit. Equally important is the necessity for Federal enforcement in connection with foreign fishing intrusion on the high seas where the United States has asserted its claims to any fishery resource under the provisions of the Convention of the Continental Shelf as provided for in the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea of 1958. S. 1988 would meet the need for clear-cut Federal responsibility and enforcement authority to protect our territorial and Continental Shelf fisheries resources from foreign national encroachment. (See committee insert on p. 5.) Mr. MARVICH. Alaska exercises enforcement of its regulations in the territorial sea on anyone violating the provisions of State statutes or regulations. Alaska has no authority to control entrance of foreign nationals into State waters unless the foreign nationals violate some Alaska law independent of intrusion. Assistance by the Federal Government in enforcement would be highly advantageous in the case of foreign nationals. Alaska was obliged, in several cases, to apprehend foreign nationals from fishing in State waters in violation of State statutes and regulations. A case in point was the apprehension of the Japanese vessels in the Shelikof Strait area; another instance was the citation of Canadian halibut fishermen fishing in Alaska waters in the Portland Canal area. There have been many, many other instances of violations of territorial waters in Alaska by foreign vessels. Among these could be |