making sure we don't overfish them, but also, make sure we fully utilize them.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very much, Mr. McKernan and Mr. Terry.

Mr. McKERNAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BARTLETT. The next witness will be Comdr. Larry G. Parks, U.S. Navy, International Law Section.

STATEMENT OF COMDR. LARRY G. PARKS, SPECIAL ASSISTANT ON THE LAW OF THE SEA TO THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, U.S. NAVY

Commander PARKS. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement, very short, which I will read, if it pleases the committee.

Senator BARTLETT. We would be pleased to have you do so. Commander PARKS. It is my pleasure to be here today to testify on S. 1988 on behalf of the Department of the Navy. I am the special assistant on the law of the sea to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. It is my responsibility to keep abreast of the law of the sea and to represent the Judge Advocate General and the Department of the Navy in some of the Navy problems in this regard.

During the past year I have participated with personnel of other departments and agencies of the Government in the study of the problems raised by foreign fishing vessels being in U.S. territorial waters. During these discussions it became apparent, as a collateral matter, that U.S. domestic law with respect to foreign vessels fishing in U.S. territorial waters was inadequate. As a result, the Navy concurred in the desirability of seeking remedial legislation.

Certainly it is clear that under international law the United States has the right to prohibit foreign vessels from fishing in its territorial sea. However, there is an area of doubt as to whether U.S. law specifically prohibits foreign fishing vessels from fishing in the U.S. territorial sea.

The provisions of section 251 of title 46, United States Code, the only statute of general application which could be regarded as a prohibition, are not clear in this respect.

In addition, assuming that section 251 does prohibit foreign fishing in the territorial sea, there are no penalties at present for violation of this section. A naked prohibition is not much use as a deterrent to foreign fishing. In these circumstances, the Department of the Navy strongly supports any efforts to clarify and strengthen U.S. law prohibiting fishing in the territorial sea by foreign-flag vessels.

That concludes my statement, Senator.

Senator BARTLETT. I notice at the bottom of your prepared statement these words appear: "This statement is not for publication until released by committee."

Commander Parks, the committee releases this. We are glad to have this go out generally, and we are delighted to have the support of the Department of the Navy, glad to know the Navy Department feels that the rather gray area now present ought to be made perfectly clear and I thank you for having appeared and presented the views of the Department of the Navy.

Commander PARKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BARTLETT. There are many questions that I have in mind that I should like to ask you in related areas, but in the circumstances perhaps it would be better not to.

much.

Commander PARKS. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very
Mr. Lewis, please.

Mr. Lewis has been waiting here very patiently for too long and I apologize to you, Mr. Lewis.

STATEMENT OF MANUEL F. LEWIS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, GLOUCESTER FISHERIES COMMISSION, GLOUCESTER, MASS.

Mr. LEWIS. My name is Manuel F. Lewis, executive secretary for the Gloucester Fisheries Commission, a municipal agency for the city of Gloucester.

I wish to record the commission in favor of S. 1988. Though I feel this is a step in the right direction, I feel that it is only the first step. of many that must be taken if we are to save the fishing industry of this country from the Russian threat that confronts us today. Never before have I seen the industry in Gloucester alarmed as they are today over the events that are taking place within 3 miles of our coastline and, yes, possibly within less than 3 miles. One of our fishing captains contends that he has taken bearings on a Russian trawler and that the trawler was inside the territorial waters of the State of Massachusetts where even our own fishermen pay a penalty for fishing within 3 miles. Our whiting industry at this time is being ravished by the Russian fleet close to the beaches of our shore.

Where and what type of fishing is the Russian trawler fleet engaged in when presumably fishing in a blanket of fog or in the darkness of night? This is a question one might pose to the authorities who are closely observing this tremendous fleet.

I believe without question that there is a method to their madness. and that is to get into our shores as close as possible and clean out whatever fish may be there regardless of size or type of fish. These boats fishing in a checkerboard pattern are bent on the destruction of this industry as quickly as it can be done. The U.S. landing of fish for the first 6 months of this year is 240 million pounds or 14 percent off from last year at the same time.

In the New England area, the landing of the types of fish which are important to our city, such as ocean perch and whiting, is down 15,900,000 pounds less than last year in regard to ocean perch and 2 million pounds less than last year in regard to whiting.

In Gloucester alone, industrial fish landings for the first 6 months of this year are 12,200,000 pounds less than the same period for last year.

In the week ending August 24, Gloucester landings were 3,734,000 pounds less than the same period last year. This shows the beginning of a downward trend to which we credit much of this to the Russian trawling effort. Also, we might very well hasten to add that we soon will see the Japanese fishing effort extended to the New England coast in the very near future.

Whatever other activities the Russian trawler fleet is engaged in outside of fishing, I leave in the hands of the proper authorities to deal with, but unless this type of legislation S. 1988 or changes

in territorial limits of the United States are passed in Congress, the United States is faced with the loss of what may be someday, although we all pray that we never see the day, the most important food resource in the country.

In behalf of the Gloucester Fisheries Commission, I heartily endorse this bill and sincerely hope that this committee will report it out favorably.

Let us begin to move in the right direction for the salvation of the U.S. fishing industry.

May I point out further than my statement, Mr. Chairman, that there have been reports of violations by the Russians in accordance with the Treaty of ICNAF, that they may be fishing with this type of mesh for cod and haddock. I am not too concerned with whether they are violating that treaty or not, because any nation that uses this type of mesh on the type of fish we have in New England, is certainly bent on the destruction of the fishing industry of this country.

Senator BARTLETT. How big is that net?

Mr. LEWIS. It is about an inch and a half.

Senator BARTLETT. A shrimp would have trouble getting through there, wouldn't it?

Mr. LEWIS. A cigar will do it and that is about all. You can imagine how much flesh is on a piece of fish, when you look at a cigar and that is about all that will go through this mesh.

Senator BARTLETT. What size mesh do American fishermen use? Mr. LEWIS. Under the treaty they use a 41⁄2-inch mesh and the whiting fishermen are using a 22- to 31⁄2-inch net for whiting, as whiting is not under the treaty.

May I also say emotion runs high with the fishermen? One fishing captain stated on two trips he has backed down for the Russian trawlers, because of their checkerboard pattern of fishing. He says "I will not back down on my third trip."

These are things that may occur in the seas, and a possibility of an incident occurring on the high seas, could well stir up future trouble. Senator BARTLETT. You have exactly the same situation we do off the Alaska coast. Our fishermen are getting a little restive.

Mr. LEWIS. I would say so, Mr. Chairman. I would say on the New England cost, Gloucester now is feeling the effects of the Russian trawler effort at this time but the others will soon feel the effects.

Senator BARTLETT. You interested me when you said the Gloucester Fisheries Commission is a municipal agency.

Is it common for New England fishing cities to have commissions of this type?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir.

In 1956 we saw the future of the fishing industry dwindling, and the mayor felt there was a need for a fisheries commission within the city and by an act of the State legislature, this commission was formed. Senator BARTLETT. Do you know of the formation of a similar committee by any other municipality, anywhere? I do not. Mr. LEWIS. I don't know of any, sir.

Senator BARTLETT. How many members are there on your commission?

Mr. LEWIS. There are 13 members, who make up the commission, diversified within the industry.

Senator BARTLETT. Is Gloucester heavily dependent upon the fishing industry?

Mr. LEWIS. 70 percent of the population of Gloucester is dependent on the fishing industry.

Senator BARTLETT. When you mentioned that in the first 6 months of this year landings in your city were over 12 million pounds less than in the same period for last year, could you relate possibly, even generally, to employment and what effect this has on your economy?

Mr. LEWIS. Well, the 12 million pounds, sir, are the industrial fish, which is not the food fish. But ocean perch is down 15 million pounds in the New England area alone and ocean perch is one of the principal supplies we have in our city. In the month of August, where it is normal for our people to be working 5 and 6 days a week, we are down to 1 day a week because of the Russian trawling effort on our beaches. This is something unheard of in the city of Gloucester, for our shore workers to be working 1 day a week in the month of August.

Senator BARTLETT. Your fishery resources simply aren't big enough, numerous enough, to support this type of fishing which is going on. Mr. LEWIS. No, sir. But the nets like this will wipe out our fishing industry, not in 1988, but in 1968; our whiting fishery will be gone, with this type of net that is being used by the Russians at this time. It will be gone in 5 or 6 years.

Senator BARTLETT. And when your fishery is gone, these fleets will move somewhere else, do the same thing, and in my opinion, if this continues for too long, there won't be any fish left.

Mr. LEWIS. In my opinion, in 5 or 6 years we will have no industry in our city if this continues the way it is.

I would like to point out there is an article in "The Fish Boat" on "Why We Must Have a 12-Mile Limit." I don't subscribe to the 12-mile limit. I say we have to go further than that if we are to save the fishing industry. But there is a paragraph of this article I would like to read:

Today, the 3-mile limit is as unrealistic as the concept that established it, but though the cannonball of 3-mile range has become a museum piece in the last 158 years, the 3-mile U.S. fishing limit has remained unchanged.

I would like to say if we had kept up in the fishing industry in the limits, as we do with our firing power, we wouldn't be here today. Senator BARTLETT. How about putting that into the record? Mr. LEWIS. All right, sir.

(Document referred to follows:)

[From The Fish Boat, August 1963]

WHY WE MUST HAVE 12-MILE LIMIT

GLOBAL EPIDEMIC OF CLAIMS

The current global epidemic of territorial water claims comes in a variety of strains, all the way from the merely obscure to the preposterous (i.e., the 200-mile claims of Ecuador, Chile, Peru, Nicaragua and Costa Rica).

Admittedly, the complete territorial water rights complex with all its ramifications does not fall within the province of this publication or the industry it represents but fishing rights do, and on that score we unhesitatingly support the extension of U.S. limits from 3 to 12 miles.

Today, the 3-mile limit is as unrealistic as the concept that established it, but though the cannonball of 3-mile range has become a museum piece in the last 158 years, the 3-mile U.S. fishing limit has remained unchanged. A change to 12 miles is long overdue; the confusion and obscurity of definition that we have

experienced up to now is as nothing compared to what it promises to become now that the sands in which we have kept our heads buried for so long are rapidly blowing away.

3-MILE LIMIT UNREALISTIC

The list of nations that have already extended their territorial waters and/or fishing rights up to 12 miles grows progressively longer: Of the Communist bloc, Russia, China and Albania; of the countries historically associated with major fisheries, Norway, Iceland and Denmark (for Greenland and the Faroe Islands); of the developing countries, the Cameroons, Ghana, Malagasy Republic, Morocco, Senegal, Sudan and Tunisia. Others are Ireland, Panama and Uruguay, and Brazil considers all fisheries out to the edge of the Continental Shelf under her jurisdiction.

TREATIES SOLVE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS

Great Britain has abrogated fisheries treaties in preparation for extension of her fisheries limits, and just this summer Canada announced plans to extend her exclusive fishing zone to 12 miles in May of next year. Mexico is also reported to be considering such an extension.

It would, of course, be naive to expect the 12-mile limit to be a perfect solution; as a matter of fact, there are certain cases where it would create problems-but a completely inflexible position, unyielding to negotiations or treaty, would be highly undesirable anyway. Special considerations could be easily dealt with by treaty. To take an obvious example, two countries freely marketing processed fishery products between themselves could work out a treaty for mutual exemption from the 12-mile limit.

Alaska Senator Ernest Gruening's Senate bill S. 1816 to extend U.S. fishing rights to 12 miles may be the answer-it is concerned with fishing only, thus avoiding the thorny problem of territorial water rights in general. It may find a more receptive U.S. Congress than would a formula like the "6-plus-6" concept (a proposal introduced and defeated at the most recent World Conference on the Law of the Sea at Geneva which would have fixed territorial limits at 6 miles and fishing limits at an additions] 6), but whatever its fate, we are convinced that the best interests of the U.S. fishing industry will be served by a 12-mile limit concept tempered by treaty negotiations.

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Lewis, I understood you to say you believe the 3-mile limit is not adequate today for our needs, nor is a 12-mile limit.

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir. In my opinion we have to go to the Continental Shelf if we are to save the industry, at least on the New England coast. I realize that raises complications, and I realize there are those that say it is preposterous and ridiculous. But I say it is the salvation at the present time to the New England fishing industry. I say if this committee took a plane ride and went over this fleet and saw them, they would become alarmed as to the security of this Nation, because it wouldn't take long to drop somebody on our beaches when they are fishing 21⁄2 miles off our beaches.

Senator BARTLETT. I am sure Senator Magnuson and I would agree with you wholeheartedly that the bill which we are considering now represents only a start. We have had other starts in other directions on this committee this year, however, in behalf of the fishing industry. We share your concern, your alarm.

I want to thank you for having appeared before the committee to testify. I wish you would carry back to the members of your commission and the mayor of Gloucester our gratitude for having you appear here.

Mr. LEWIS. The mayor and I wish to thank both you and Senator Magnuson for the effort you put into the fishing industry, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I have no questions.

We want to thank Gloucester for sending us Ben Smith, who has a deep interest in this.