in its territorial sea. Provision is made for the continuation of traditional fishing by foreign states as well as for the establishment of seaward boundaries where the zone established by the act conflicts with the territorial waters or fisheries zone of another country. The impact of the bill on this Department would be difficult to assess at this time. Under existing law, the Coast Guard enforces Federal law upon the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Present operating practices of the Coast Guard do not normally demand intensive surveillance of all existing territorial limits. If the bill is enacted, it is anticipated that present levels of patrol and enforcement activity would continue unless there is evidence of wide-spread violations of prohibitions contained in the bill. Existing long-range plans of the Coast Guard provide for a moderate increase in resources which can be made available for enforcement activity. This level of surveillance is the maximum which can be provided with existing and planned personnel and equipment. The Department notes that the bill contains no penalty or other enforcement provision in case of violation of the exclusive rights in respect to fisheries which the United States would exercise under the extension of jurisdiction stated in the bill. Under the bill's provisions, however, the penalty provisions found in Public Law 88-308 would apply to persons and vessels violating the exclusive rights of the United States to fisheries in this fisheries zone. Although the bill's provisions contain the potential for a significant increase in Coast Guard activity if the exclusive right of the United States in the fisheries zone is to be strictly enforced, there are other areas in which the bill would have an effect. The Coast Guard, in the past, has worked in close cooperation with the Department of the Interior on conservation matters. If the bill results in further conservation measures, the Coast Guard would, of course, continue to participate in their enforcement. The assertion by the United States of this limited national jurisdiction over an area that until now has been open to fishing operations of other nations involves considerations of foreign relations and national security about which the Department expresses no opinion. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of this report to your Committee. Sincerely yours, FRED B. SMITH, General Counsel. [H.R. 14961, H.R. 15011, 89th Cong., 2d sess.] BILLS To establish fishing zones of the United States beyond its territorial seas, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the jurisdiction of the United States shall extend to all waters in a zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States. Such zone shall have as its inner boundary the outer limits of the territorial sea and as its seaward boundary lines drawn following the two-hundredmeter depth contour except that the lines shall be drawn so that each point on such lines is at least nine nautical miles from the nearest point of the inner boundary. The United States shall exercise in such zone the same rights in respect to fisheries as it has in its territorial sea. SEC. 2. Whenever the President determines that a portion of the zone described in section 1 of this Act would conflict with the jurisdiction of a foreign country, he may establish a seaward boundary for such portion of such zone in substitution for the seaward boundary described in section 1 of this Act. SEC. 3. (a) The provisions of the Act of May 20, 1964 (78 Stat. 195), shall apply to the zone described in section 1 of this Act, except that nothing in this Act or in that Act shall prohibit the continuation of established foreign fisheries in said zone to the extent and in the manner in which such fisheries have been conducted within such zones during the ten calendar years preceding the enactment of this Act. (b) The Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, and in consultation with the affected foreign countries, shall ascertain the extent and manner, including the average annual catch, in which foreign fisheries have been conducted in the zone during the ten caledar years preceding the enactment of this Act. 65-204-66-pt. 1-17 SEC. 4. The provisions of this Act shall take effect ninety days after the enactment of this Act. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of the Department with respect to H.R. 14961, a bill "To establish fishing zones of the United States beyond its territorial seas, and for other purposes." H.R. 14961 would extend the jurisdiction of the United States to all waters in a zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States. Such zone would have as its inner boundary the outer limits of the territorial sea and as its seaward boundary lines drawn following the two-hundred-meter depth contour except that the lines would be drawn so that each point on such lines would be at least nine nautical miles from the nearest point of the inner boundary. The United States would exercise in such zone the same rights in respect to fisheries as it has in its territorial sea. It is our understanding that drawing the line to follow the two-hundred-meter depth contour would mean making claim to a contiguous fisheries zone stretching outward in some directions to distances from 200 to 400 miles from our coast. Since the paramount considerations and implications underlying this bill relate to matters of foreign relations and defense we defer to the agencies concerned with these matters. However, we would like to say that on economic and commercial grounds we see no advantage, on balance, to be gained from the enactment of this bill. We are informed that approximately 15 percent by value of the U.S. fishing catch, a large portion of which consisted of tuna, was taken during the period 1959-1963 off the coasts of certain Latin American countries claiming territorial waters of 200 miles. It would appear that asserting claim to the vast fisheries zone as proposed by this bill would amount to a recognition by the United States of the validity of similar claims asserted by these Latin American countries. Thus, the enactment of H.R. 14961 could well affect adversely our tuna resources, and the U.S. tuna fishing industry. 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. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your request for comment on H.R. 14961, a bill, “To establish fishing zones of the United States beyond its territorial seas, and for other purposes," has been assigned to this Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon expressing the views of the Department of Defense. This bill would establish a contiguous fishing zone under the exclusive fishery jurisdiction of the United States whose outer boundary would be coterminous with the 200 meter contour line as a maximum and as a minimum would extend nine nautical miles from the outer limit of the territorial sea. Within this zone the United States would have exclusive fishery rights subject only to a continuation of the fishing rights of foreign nations whose nationals have fished in the zone for the ten calendar years preceding the enactment of this Act. We are of the opinion that the use of the 200 meter contour line to define the outer limits of this zone would lead to vagueness and make regulations pertaining to the zone difficult to enforce. Further we would not like to see fishing rights confused with exploration and exploitation of the Continental Shelf as is likel if the same boundary is used to define the two zones. More importantly we are of the opinion that the zone sought to be established would be contrary to international law. The High Seas Convention prohibits any state from subjecting the high seas to its sovereignty in contravention of the freedoms of the high seas which include freedom of fishing. Although we have indicated in our position on H.R. 9531 that we are persuaded by the report of the State Department that extension of our fishing jurisdiction to 12 miles would not be contrary to international law, we think that the provisions of H.R. 14961, in so far as they extend this jurisdiction beyond 12 miles, places the United States in direct violation of the Convention, and we think this in spite of the fact that historic fishing rights would be preserved. We are also concerned that illegal action to claim exclusive fishing rights in large areas of the high seas may accelerate a trend of claims which will seriously interfere with freedom of navigation on and over the high seas. Experience has shown that there is great difficulty in restricting the impact of an illegal assertion of control over fishing, and we would expect that passage of this bill would inevitably lead to interference with the free movement of our ships and aircraft and thus be inimical to our national defense. From our conclusions regarding the legality of the proposed action under international law and from our concern that it will tend to further erode the right of freedom of navigation on the sea and in the air we oppose enactment of H.R. 14961. 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 Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report on H.R. 14961 for the consideration of the Committee. For the Secretary of the Navy. Sincerely yours, F. R. DOWNS. Acting. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., May 23, 1966. Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. GARMATZ. Your Committee has requested this Department's views and recommendations on H.R. 14961, a bill "To establish fishing zones of the United States beyond its territorial seas, and for other purposes." H.R. 14961 is similar to H.R. 9531 which is also pending before your Committee. H.R. 14961 extends United States jurisdiction to all waters in a zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States. In the context of the bill, we construe this to mean just the fisheries jurisdiction of the United States. The fisheries zone established by the bill shall be at least nine additional nautical miles from the outer limits of the present territorial sea boundary. Foreign fisheries within the zone can continue "to the extent and in the manner in which such fisheries have been conducted within such zones during the ten calendar years preceding enactment." As we indicated in our report on H.R. 9531, there are from a fisheries standpoint reasons for and against the extension of the fisheries jurisdiction of the United States to a total of 12 miles, but that the advantages and the disadvantages to the United States commercial fishing industry, as a whole, are so balanced at this time that there is no clear case for such action. Of course, this is our opinion and it can be argued, but there is no doubt in our view that broader extensions of jurisdictions, such as contemplated by H.R. 14961, cannot be advantageous to the whole commercial fishing industry. The mere fact of a claim by the United States to extended jurisdictionwhether the claim were made effective or not-would strengthen the claims to extreme jurisdictions advanced by many governments in Latin America and would thus substantially increase the threat to the United States fishery operating in waters off South American coasts. In brief, such effort by the United States would, in our judgment, be ineffective in achieving the sought-after objective and at the same time would diminish by an unacceptable amount the ability of the United States to minimize the effect on United States distant-water fisheries of extreme Latin American claims. We therefore recommend against the enactment of H.R. 14961. 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, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, STANLEY A. CAIN, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of May 13, 1966 enclosed a copy of H.R. 14961, introduced by Representative Pelly, on which the Department of State's comments were requested. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to establish for the United States an exclusive fisheries zone in the waters superjacent to the continental shelf (200 metres depth contour limit) or to a distance of twelve miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, where the continental shelf is not that wide. Provision is made for continuation of foreign fishing that has been conducted in the zone for ten years preceding enactment of the Act. The Department of State is opposed to the enactment of the proposed legislation which, except for the twelve-mile fisheries limit, has no basis in international law and is contrary to the treaty commitments of the United States. As indicated in its letter to your Committee commenting on H.R. 9531, the Department of State considers that international practice permits the extension by the United States of its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction nine miles beyond the three-mile territorial sea, which would make an exclusive fisheries jurisdiction of twelve miles measured from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Few nations, however, claim exclusive fisheries jurisdiction beyond twelve miles, and the United States and most other nations have consistently refused to recognize such claims. The Department's letter commenting on H.R. 9531 also noted that the four Conventions on the Law of the Sea, adopted at the Geneva Conference of 1958, left unresolved the questions of the width of the territorial sea and the extent to which a coastal State could claim exclusive fishing rights in the high seas off its coast. To the extent that international practice does not warrant a claim of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction, however, the Department considers that such a claim would be contrary to the provisions of three of those Conventions. The Convention on the Continental Shelf, which has been ratified by the United States and entered into force on June 10, 1964, provides that the coastal State exercises over the continental shelf "sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources." The "continental shelf" is defined as the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of 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. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows: "The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not affect the legal status of the superjacent waters as high seas, or that of the airspace above those waters." The Convention on the High Seas has also been ratified by the United States; it entered into force on September 30, 1962. Article 1 of the Convention defines "high seas" as all parts of the sea that are not included in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State. Article 2 of the Convention provides that the high seas are open to all nations and that freedom of the high seas, which is to be exercised under the conditions laid down by the Convention and by the other rules of international law, comprises freedom of fishing, among other freedoms. Finally, the Convention on Fisheries and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, which was ratified by the United States on the same date as the other two Conventions mentioned, and entered into force on March 20, 1966, provides that all States have the right for their nationals to engage in fishing on the high seas subject to their treaty obligations and the provisions of the Convention with respect to conservation and the rights and interests of coastal States. A basic principle of the Convention is that conservation measures should not discriminate against foreign fishermen. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, DOUGLAS MACARTHUR II, (For the Secretary of State). THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Hon EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 14961, "To establish fishing zones of the United States beyond its territorial seas, and for other purposes." The bill would extend the jurisdiction of the United States to all waters in a zone contiguous to the territorial waters of the United States which would have as its seaward boundary a line drawn following the two-hundred-meter depth contour but in no event less than nine nautical miles distant from the outer limits of the territorial sea. In this zone, the provisions of Public Law 88-308 would apply, and the United States would exercise the same rights in respect to fisheries as it has in its territorial sea. Provision is made for the continuation of traditional fishing by foreign states as well as for the establishment of seaward boundaries where the zone established by the act conflicts with the territorial waters or fishery zone of another country. The impact of the bill on this Department would be difficult to assess at this time. Under existing law, the Coast Guard enforces Federal law upon the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Present operating practices of the Coast Guard do not normally demand intensive surveillance of all existing territorial limits. If the bill is enacted, it is anticipated that present levels of patrol and enforcement activity would continue unless there is evidence of wide-spread violations of prohibitions contained in the bill. Existing long-range plans of the Coast Guard provide for a moderate increase in resources which can be made available for enforcement activity. This level of surveillance is the maximum which can be provided with existing and planned personnel and equipment. The Department notes that the bill contains no penalty or other enforcement provision in case of violation of the exclusive rights in respect to fisheries which the United States would exercise under the extension of jurisdiction stated in the bill. Under the bill's provisions, however, the penalty provisions found in Public Law 88-308 would apply to persons and vessels violating the exclusive rights of the United States to fisheries in this fishery zone. Although the bill's provisions contain the potential for a significant increase in Coast Guard activity if the exclusive right of the United States in the fishery zone is to be strictly enforced, there are other areas in which the bill would have an effect. The Coast Guard, in the past, has worked in close cooperation with the Department of the Interior on conservation matters. If the bill results in further conservation measures, the Coast Guard would continue, of course, to participate in their enforcement. The assertion by the United States of this limited national jurisdiction over an area that until now has been open to fishing operations of other nations involves considerations of foreign relations and national security about which the Department expresses no opinion. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of this report to your Committee. Sincerely yours, FRED B. SMITH, |