Delaware River emerges into the sea were historic bays, and as I understand it, those were the only bays in this country that were so

recognized.

Mr. DOWNING. Are there other bays of similar type which have not been recognized?

Mr. BARRY. I think Cook Inlet in Alaska is similar. It is nearly 200 miles long.

I am guessing, now. I think that is about what it is, about 200 miles long.

Mr. DOWNING. What is so basically wrong with giving States this extra mineral property?

Mr. BARRY. My own feeling is that it is not the policy of the United States to dispose of large tracts of land and large amounts of resources that belong to all of the Nation without very wide consideration at least in all of the areas concerned.

This bill is entitled "to protect the coastal fishery and other resources" and it might protect a small amount of the coastal fisheries, and perhaps render some benefit, but, as I pointed out in my statement, it would be at an enormous cost, since much of the area that would be involved in the drawing of straight base lines, that could conceivably qualify as such, is very rich in minerals.

Mr. DOWNING. Texas has submerged lands, does it not?

Mr. BARRY. They have the right to the submerged lands to the 3-league limit. They were one of the two States on the Gulf of Mexico that qualified historically for the 3-league limit, so that they go out about 10 miles.

Mr. DOWNING. What does Virginia have?

Mr. BARRY. Virginia is on the Atlantic Coast, and is entitled to only 3 miles, under the Submerged Lands Act.

Mr. DOWNING. Do you think that that is discriminatory?

Mr. BARRY. It was suggested that the primary purpose of the Submerged Lands Act was to transfer the lands to the States. The big interest was in the gulf, and off California, at the time the act was passed, because these areas off those coasts were known to be very rich in minerals, and the States were interested in having them transferred to them.

Mr. DOWNING. What use is the Federal Government making of that land?

Mr. BARRY. If you are talking about off Virginia, I don't know that anyone is making any use of it.

If you are talking about off Texas, Louisiana, and other Gulf States, the United States leases all lands seaward of the State boundaries, that is, seaward of the 3-league limit off Texas, and the 3 miles for all other States except Florida on the gulf, which is also 3 leagues.

But we lease land wherever any evidence exists that there is any reason to lease it, that is to say, where there are minerals. There is a very large production of oil and gas and other minerals off the boundaries of the States beyond the 3-league or 3-mile limit on the gulf. We also lease lands off the coast of California. I don't know if the leases have been issued. The wheels are at least turning to have leases made off the coasts of Oregon and Washington, and eventually

any time anyone has indicated any interest out to the edge of the Continental Shelf, under the Continental Shelf Lands Act, the United States of America has the authority to lease, and these leases are administered by the Department of the Interior.

Mr. DOWNING. Thank you. You have been very helpful

Mr. Pelly.

Mr. PELLY. I am just reminded, Mr. Chairman, that I read that a proposal has been made in the United Nations that they take over all the high seas, and use the income from any mineral or other income out of them for helping pay for the United Nations.

I think we had better grab some of those resources before the United Nations takes them. They are going to have an Army, too, to protect their interests.

Mr. BARRY. The United States now claims the authority, and this has never been contested, to the edge of the Continental Shelf, and, of course, this is a part of the Continental Shelf Convention.

The convention indicates that we can go out to certain depths, but that any further that we can go depends on our ability to get there, and modern technology is not unable to devise systems to get out beyond these 600-foot depths, or the 200-meter depth, or the edge of the Continental Shelf.

We expect to be able to go beyond, and I anticipate that our children will probably see a lot of international disputes over the minerals underneath the ocean.

Mr. PELLY. And disputes over the moon, and other outer space ownership, too, I fear.

Do you happen to know, Mr. Barry, as to the alleged rights under which the Soviet Union ordered the Japanese to leave from 18 miles, and more, in the Sea of Japan?

Mr. BARRY. I will ask Mr. McKernan. He might know the answer to that. I am not familiar with that.

Mr. PELLY. On what basis did they have their patrols order the Japanese fishing fleet to leave?

Mr. McKERNAN. I don't know the specific circumstances, Mr. Pelly, but Japan and the U.S.S.R. carry out patrols in the North Pacific under an international convention, and I would judge that any action by the Soviet Union-and this is merely a presumption on my partwould be brought about under some terms of this joint convention.

It has been my understanding that the Soviet Union has scrupulously avoided incidents that were outside of the terms of these conventions in recent years, although there might be some special circumstance that you are talking about."

Mr. PELLY. Last March I understand that there was one such incident, and there have been a number of others. The incident last March, according to what I read, was 18 miles off the coastline, and this happens to be about the only time that you ever appeared as a witness when you were not sure of an answer.

I am going to ask you, if you will, to check on that, if you can do so, and submit it for the record.

Mr. McKERNAN. I certainly will, Mr. Pelly.

(The information follows:)

MARCH 15, 1966.

SOVIET PATROL BOAT ORDERS JAPANESE FISHING BOATS TO WITHDRAW FROM OPEN SEAS

Sixteen drag-net fishing boats of Otaru City, Hokkaido, which went fishing off the shores of the Maritime Province of Siberia of Soviet territory on the 14th, were ordered by a Soviet patrol boat to "leave the fishing ground," and all the boats gave up fishing and headed for Otaru Port. This is the third time since the beginning of this year that fishing boats were driven away from high-sea fishing grounds, and persons concerned are seriously shocked.

According to reports received by the Otaru Fisheries Wireless Station that day, "No. 5 Ebisu Maru" (83 tons), a drag-net fishing boat owned by Sadakichi Homma at 13, 3-chome, Temiya-cho, Otaru City, when operating on the high seas about 30 kilometers southeast of Cape Yegoroba [phonetic] in the Maritime Province of Siberia, was approached by a Soviet patrol boat at around 1:15 p.m. flying international signal flags "JQJ (navy), ILQ (withdraw), JIJ 15 (15 miles east)." This was an instruction, "Withdraw 15 miles to east." Therefore, a total of 16 drag-net fishing boats fishing there centering on "No. 5 Ebisu Maru" moved to a fishing ground to the northeast. At around 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., they were ordered by three Soviet patrol boats again "to leave the place."

As they felt an ominous atmosphere, such as a Soviet airplane appearing in the sky, in addition to the patrol boats, the 16 fishing boats gave up operations toward evening, and all the boats returned to Otaru.

According to an investigation by the First District Maritime Safety Headquarters (Otaru), this was the third time that fishing boats were ordered to withdraw from fishing grounds off the Maritime Province of Siberia since the beginning of this year. The first time, six boats including the "No. 21 Suehiro Maru" on January 26 were ordered to leave a fishing ground by a Soviet patrol boat at Cape Yegoroba; the second time was February 15, when 16 boats including "No. 11 Totsu Maru” were ordered to leave the off-shore southeast of Cape Pabarotonui [phonetic], and they gave up fishing.

Some people observe that the three recurrent events, which did not occur last year at all, are connected with the Soviet side's military moves. Fishermen there, however, are raising strong voices, calling for countermeasures in some way or other, as their livelihood will be affected if they are driven from fishing grounds on the high seas.

Mr. PELLY. I think, Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I have ever known where Mr. McKernan did not have right at his fingertips the answer to the questions that we have given him.

Mr. DOWNING. The chairman agrees with the gentleman. He has been before this committee many times.

Mr. BARRY. Mr. Pelly, may I say we have a tradition in the Department of the Interior that we may be wrong, but we are never in doubt. Mr. PELLY. I will say that you have a good sense of humor in that Department.

Mr. DOWNING. Counsel has a question.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Barry, section 4 of the bill authorizes such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the bill. Do you have any idea what the estimated cost of this bill would be to the Government, in case it is enacted?

Mr. BARRY. I have not gone into it at all. I would anticipate that it is a good deal easier and cheaper to take a ruler and draw a straight base line, than it would be to have a survey team go out and ascertain where the mean low water was and calculate on the basis of that.

I doubt very much, however, if the difference in cost would be justified by the amount of property that the United States would have to give up.

Mr. EVERETT. Would you be kind enough to supply that information for the record, please?

Mr. BARRY. I will see what can be done. I will be glad to do that.

(The information requested follows:)

Dr. Joseph Wraight, Chief Geographer, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Environmental Science Services Administration, United States Department of Commerce, has advised us informally that straight baselines could be drawn for the appropriate parts of the coast of the United States at a cost of about $10,000.

Mr. EVERETT. One other question. It appears that this bill is designed to implement the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, and section 1 of the bill makes it mandatory that the President draw straight baselines. Now, the convention itself makes it optional with the President.

If in section 1 of the bill the language of the convention itself could be utilized, which would encompass putting the word "may" before the word "be" on page 2, line 2, which would make it optional with the President, what would be the stand of the Department, if that is done?

Mr. BARRY. Well, if I may say, I don't read it quite to say that this is an order of Congress. It is a statement of what the sense of Congress is, and I believe that it is couched in such language as would indicate that Congress is not ordering the President to draw straight baselines.

I think it is actually permissive in terms, right now.

Mr. EVERETT. That is my point. It appears that it is permissive now, but section 1 makes it mandatory.

Mr. BARRY. I interpreted section 1 quite differently. I thought that it is the sense of Congress that the United States implement. That, expressing the sense of Congress, is a rather mild way of issuing an order.

It might say, "This is what we would like to have you do," but assuming that it is mandatory, would our views change, if it were made permissive?

Well, in reading the bill I thought it was permissive, and our views would be as I have already expressed them, whether mandatory or permissive.

Mr. EVERETT. Line 2 of page 2 of the bill says: "*** be employed in drawing the baseline."

The language in the convention itself had the words "may be employed."

I was wondering if this would have any effect on the Department's stand on the legislation as it is now.

Mr. BARRY. Our view would be that there is not any need to do it right now, that since the President has all the authority under the convention, there is no point in Congress expressing a view that indicates that this would or would not be a good thing, since that would put him under some obligation, at least; and we feel that at this time, at least, it would be better if he were permitted to be free in making that decision.

The primary concern that I am expressing has to do with the effect of transferring these lands to the States. The lands belong to the United States. They are the property of all of the people of the United States, and the chairman asked a question a little while ago, "What is so wrong about turning them over to the States?"

Well, anything that the United States gives to anyone, to States or individuals or industries, in the way of subsidies or anything else, is

very carefully considered by Congress, and I believe properly should be, and I don't think that a fisheries bill is the appropriate vehicle for transferring far greater wealth in terms of minerals and other re

sources.

Mr. EVERETT. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOWNING. Congressman Hastings Keith, of Massachusetts, has been one of the main proponents of this bill.

Do you have any questions?

Mr. KEITH. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman; but I am much more enthusiastic about H.R. 9531 than I am about H.R. 9530.

Mr. DOWNING. Your statement was received for the record.

Mr. KEITH. Thank you.

Mr. DOWNING. If there are no further questions, the committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, at which time we will hear other witnesses from the Department of the Interior, and also from Mr. Harold Lokken, of Seattle, Wash.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 25, 1966.)