MISCELLANEOUS FISHERIES LEGISLATION FISHING RIGHTS TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1966 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas N. Downing presiding. Mr. DOWNING. The meeting will come to order. This morning and tomorrow the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation will consider several bills which would establish fishing zones beyond our territorial seas. As I am sure most of you are aware, present law guarantees our U.S. fishermen exclusive fishing rights in the waters which encompass our territorial sea, and the bills to be heard today would in no way extend the jurisdiction nor alter our sovereignty over our territorial sea. My bill, H.R. 9531, and identical bills, H.R. 9540 by Mr. Meeds; H.R. 10177 by Mr. Rivers of Alaska; H.R. 10183 by Mr. Pelly; H.R. 13375 by Mr. Don Clausen; H.R. 13376 by Mr. Keith; H.R. 13377 by Mr. Mathias; H.R. 13479 by Mr. Morton; H.R. 15030 by Mr. Dulski; and H.R. 15191 by Mr. Rogers of Florida, would extend our exclusive fishing rights from the outer limits of the territorial sea seaward a distance of 9 nautical miles. H.R. 14961 by Mr. Pelly, and H.R. 15011 by Mr. Wyatt would extend our exclusive fishing rights by providing that the new zone would have as its inner boundary the outer limits of the territorial sea and as its seaward boundary lines drawn following the 200 meter depth contour. These bills would have the effect of establishing an exclusive fisheries zone superjacent to the Continental Shelf. In addition, the subcommittee will receive testimony on H.R. 9530, which is my bill, which is designed to protect our coastal fisheries and other resources by implementing the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. Since all of the bills to be heard are concerned with our fishing rights in the territorial sea and the zone beyond the territorial sea, they will be heard as a group. The Chair is hopeful that the testimony to be received today and tomorrow will be most helpful when the committee considers these bills at a later date. Let the bills and departmental reports appear in the record at this time. (Bills and reports referred to follow :) [H.R. 9530, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To protect coastal fishery and other resources by implementing the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the sense of the Congress that the United States implement the Convention the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone which came into force on September 10, 1964, by marking on large-scale charts officially recognized by the United States the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, and that in localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines joining appropriate points be employed in drawing the baseline pursuant to article 4 of the Convention. SEC. 2. In reference to marking straight baselines, the President shall— (1) Determine the localities on the coast of the United States in which the use of the straight baseline method would be appropriate and in the best interests of the United States. (2) Indicate on charts and give due publicity to the baseline establishing the inner boundary of the territorial sea in such localities. SEC. 3. In carrying out the provisions of this Act, the President shall be guided by, and shall act in a manner consistent with, the provisions of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. SEC. 4. (a) In carrying out the provisions of this Act, the President is authorized to act through such officers or agencies of the United States as he may deem advisable. (b) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to enable the President to carry out the provisions of this Act. SEC. 5. As used in this Act (1) The term "territorial sea" means the belt of sea adjacent to the coast of the United States over which it has sovereignty and which lies between its land territory and internal waters and the high seas. (2) The term "United States" means the several States and any insular or other territory of the United States. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Washington, D.C., May 23, 1966. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department with respect to H.R. 9530, a bill "To protect coastal fishery and other resources by implementing the Convention on the Territorial Sea and in the Contiguous Zone." This bill would express the sense of Congress that the United States should implement the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (TIAS 5639) which came into force on September 10, 1964, by marking on large scale charts officially recognized by the United States the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention and that in localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines joining appropriate points be employed in drawing the baseline pursuant to Article 4 of the Convention. As this bill involves questions pertaining to international relations, national security, and the Submerged Lands Act, this Department defers to the agencies most directly concerned with these matters. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, ROBERT E. GILES, General Counsel. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your request for comment on H.R. 9530, a bill "To protect coastal fishery and other resources by implementing the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone," has been assigned to this Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon expressing the views of the Document of Defense. H.R. 9530 would express the sense of Congress that the United States should implement the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (TIAS 5639), which came into force on 10 September 1964, by marking on large-scale charts officially recognized by the United States the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea "pursuant to article 3 of the Convention," and that in localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines joining appropriate points should be employed in drawing the baselines "pursuant to article 4 of the Convention." Article 3 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone provides: "Except where otherwise provided in these articles, the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State." Article 4 of the Convention provides, in pertinent part: "1. In localities where the coast line is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines joining appropriate points may be employed in drawing the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. "6. The coastal State must clearly indicate straight baselines on charts, to which due publicity must be given." It is readily apparent that Article 3 of the Convention represents a definition of the normal baseline and does not specifically require the United States to indicate on large-scale charts the normal baseline for measuring the United States territorial sea. It is only in those instances where "straight baselines" are drawn that the Convention requires a coastal State to indicate the lines on official charts. Thus, the language of the bill tends to be misleading. The United States Navy has consistently viewed with grave concern the establishment of any baselines that tend to erode the principle of freedom of the seas. The practical legal effect of employing straight baselines is to enclose as internal waters areas of the high seas in derogation of the principle of freedom of the seas. It removes from the free high seas areas that are available for the reasonable use of ships and aircraft of all States and places such sea areas in a category which subjects their use by naval forces to the whim of the coastal State. It is considered that the implementation of the straight baseline concept by the United States would have some adverse effects on United States security interests because of the precedent it would set, and the encouragement it would afford, for possible similar actions by other countries, and because of the support it would lend to the exaggerated and illegal straight baseline claims which have been made by some States. The United States Air Force has similar concerns with respect to freedom of airspace above the high seas. In view of the foregoing, the Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of Defense, is opposed to the enactment of H.R. 9530. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Adminis tration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the Committee. For the Secretary of the Navy. F. R. DOWNS, Director, Legislative Division, Acting. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., May 20, 1966. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. GARMATZ: Your Committee has requested the comments of this Department on H.R. 9530, a bill "To protect coastal fishery and other resources by implementing the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone." H.R. 9530 expresses the sense of Congress that this country implement the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone by marking on officially recognized charts the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, and by employing the straight baseline method pursuant to article 4 of the Convention where appropriate. In marking straight baselines, the President is directed to (1) determine where on the coast of the United States this method would be appropriate and in the best interests of the United States, and (2) give due publicity to the baseline establishing the inner boundary of the territorial sea where the straight baseline is used. Section 3 of the bill directs the President to follow the guidelines set forth in the Convention. We strongly recommend against the enactment of this bill. "Except where otherwise provided in these articles, the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State." Article 4 provides in part: "1. In localities where the coast line is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines joining appropriate points may be employed in drawing the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. * "6. The coastal State must clearly indicate straight baselines on charts, to which due publicity must be given." In United States v. California, 381 U.S. 139, 167 (1965), the court, in commenting on the provisions of article 4, held: "We agree with the United States that the Convention recognizes the validity of straight base lines used by other countries, Norway for instance, and would permit the United States to use such base lines if it chose, Section 1 of the bill is not in mandatory terms. Section 2, however, directs the President to determine where the straight baseline method should be used. Inasmuch as the bill merely authorizes the President to use the straight baseline method, it is unnecessary. The United States, pursuant to the Convention, can now decide to use or not to use this method. Since 1964, the United States has not adopted this method. We believe, however, that the President could, in the conduct of foreign affairs, do so without the aid of legislation such as this bill, if he determined that it was in the best interest of the United States In addition to its potential adverse effects on the conduct of foreign affairs, H.R. 9530 raises domestic problems. The use of the straight baseline method may result in the enlargement of grants of land made to the States pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act (for U.S.C. 1301-1315). Section 4 of the Submerged Lands Act confirms the seaward boundary of the coastal States as a line "three geographical miles distant [from their] coast line". The term "coast line" is defined in section 2 of that Act as "the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters". If the "seaward limit of inland waters" is extended by the use of straight baselines, the "coast line" and the seaward boundaries of the coastal States could be construed as being automatically extended and enlarged under the Submerged Lands Act. Thus, The Convention provides that waters landward of the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured are "internal" waters of the coastal State. the Convention recognizes that employment of the straight baseline method enlarges the area of inland or internal waters. In United States v. California, 381 U.S. 139, 167 (1965), the definiteness and stability which the court was attempting to give to the Submerged Lands Act grant was accomplished by "freezing" the meaning of "inland waters" in accordance with "the terms of the Convention". Although the language of the decision seems to preclude enlargement of the Submerged Lands Act grant by future changes in the Convention or foreign policy, nothing is said in that decision regarding the effect of future implementation of the present "terms of the Convention". In other words, while the court applied the definitions of the Convention to define the term "inland waters" as used in the Submerged Lands Act, nothing was said which would preclude extension of the coastal State's ownership to the submerged lands of additional "inland waters" which might be created under the present terms of the Convention if the United States should employ the straight baseline method to define the line from which its territorial sea is to be measured. Some of these additional submerged lands have mineral values which are now being developed under leases issued by this Department pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1331-1343). Revenues from these leases currently go into miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury for the benefit of the entire country. The employment of the straight baseline method, as proposed by H.R. 9530 might result in making these revenues available only to the coastal States. We believe that this result is undesirable and should be avoided. Furthermore, no good reason exists for granting this Federal property to the coastal States. Indeed, we believe that it is not the purpose of the bill to make such a grant. The benefits that might accrue from this bill, so far as commercial fisheries interests are concerned, might be the addition of some areas where the United States would have exclusive fishery jurisdiction and the certainty of an officially marked territorial boundary for enforcement purposes. On the other hand, the example set by the United States in the establishment of a territorial boundary by the straight baseline method would encourage and stimulate other countries to follow the same course. While failure on the part of the United States to adopt the straight baseline method would not prevent others from adopting that method, there is a risk that a precedent set by the United States to use that method would be followed. Further, the language of the Convention would permit the use of the straight baseline method in different ways. Other countries might use the method in a way that is detrimental to United States fishing operations off foreign coasts. On balance, the slight advantage that might be found in the application of the straight baseline method at the present time is offset by the disadvantages that would follow such application. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, STANLEY A. CAIN, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of June 29, 1965, acknowledged on July 7, 1965, requested the views of the Department of State on H.R. 9530, a bill "To |