Слике страница
PDF
ePub

-

RECORD

There is not a kinder, more gentle, or more understanding Member of this body than the Senator from Montana.

But I worry about his leadership. He must assume it. If we are to accomplish the business of the Senate, he must behave like a leader. Because a leader is one who leads. He must say "No" at times.

He must say "Yes" at times.
But he must be a leader.

I remember when the present Vice President, LYNDON JOHNSON, stood there. I used to tell my friends in Connecticut, when they asked me, "What kind of a leader is he?" that he reminded me of an orchestra leader. He stood up and blended into a wonderful production all the discordant notes of the Senate.

I am not critical of my friend from Montana in a harsh sense.

I am critical in a gentle and, I hope, helpful sense.

One cannot be a leader and be every man's leader.

One must say "No" sometimes. He must say "Yes" even when it hurts to say "Yes."

I wish our leader would be more of a leader and lead the Senate as it should be led.

I am willing to have the Senate sit longer hours. I am confident my colleagues are.

Let us sit Saturdays. Let us sit nights. Let us get the people's business done. Let us stop the Wall Street attitude of 9 or 12 to 4 or 5 or 6.

We are not doing the people's business. We are being frivolous with the people's business.

I am not troubled about the length of the debate, but let us sit long enough to hear it, and let us get on with our affairs.

Where I come from, men work late hours. The little people whom I represent work late hours; and if we ask their favors and we have an ambition to represent them, we should be willing to work late, too.

I repeat again, I wish the majority leader were present, because I know this will be construed as a criticism of him. It is meant to be.

It is a criticism of him.

I do not think he is leading the Senate as he should; and I believe we should have leadership.

Until we have, we shall go on dribbling our way through the legislative session, instead of doing what we should.

it was when I was a boy in high school, watching its affairs, and wishing I could sit among them. Great men in those days, towers of strength in this Nation, sat here as Members.

I remember so well how I studied every word they said.

If I were now a schoolboy in the small town from whence I came, I wonder what I would think.

I would seek to be like WAYNE MORSE. I know I would think admiringly of HUBERT HUMPHREY.

I could name others.

But it seems to me that there are few voices in the real opposition now.

This is not a government built on going along all the time, when one's conscience tells him to oppose. Where is our opposition?

Our country was built on the principle, The people are unhappy, and my mail as I understand, of conflicting ideas and reveals it. philosophies of government.

[blocks in formation]

The Republican opposition is so soft, No wonder the Senate has been deni- so cozy, that it does not count for much. grated.

The whole Congress has been denigrated. The hounds who do not believe in free government or in the importance of the legislative branch are at our heels. We are worried about scandals that beset us. We are worried about criticisms that confront us. Our business is to revive in the people's minds the idea that the Senate is the best body in all the world to protect a free people.

That is my complaint.

I say to the Senator from California, who has generously yielded to me, I am not troubled at all about the amendments and the debate. I am "warm" to them.

I see the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE] at my left hand. I consider him to be one of the ablest men in the Senate.

I say this with full knowledge of what I am saying. I want the Senators to propose amendments. I want them to be debated.

I consider the Senator from Oregon one of the great geniuses of politics.

I use the word "politics" in the sense of human beings trying to regulate their lives.

I consider the Senator from Oregon to be one of the giants in this body.

Certainly, he tries my soul.

What genius does not try the soul of others?

What great man does not perplex his. friends?

I am encouraged by what he does.

CIX-1338

And this is not my idea of a free government.

Why do Senators not get on their high horses?

Why do they not ask questions about what we are doing?

No; it is usually the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE] who stands up day after day questioning the administration for mistakes it has made.

Or it is the Senator from Oregon. I could name 5 or 10 more on this side of the aisle.

There is no opposition on the other side.

It is weak. The opposition does not even express the will of the millions it represents.

That is not opposition.

I hear the minority go along all the time, in dulcet tones, voiced by the minority leader-whatever the administration wants.

I would like to hear fiery opposition. I would like to hear the other side. I wish there were more eloquent spokesmen on the other side to rise with fire in their eyes to tell us why and when we are wrong.

But I rarely hear it.

What is happening to this country? Are we all so afraid-so influenced that we are afraid to speak our minds?

What has happened to the Senate, in which great giants once sat and spoke? Something awful has happened to it.

If a man dares stand up and say what he thinks, particularly on the subject of communism, he is called a crackpot, a nut, a man who is sick, a man who does not know what he is talking about.

I have experienced my share of such abuse.

However, I say to my fellow Senators that they are all afraid.

They are afraid of that sinister influence.

But they should not be afraid of it. Every Senator knows in his heart what up and say so. Sad, sad fate for our is right, but he is not willing to stand

Nation.

The Senator from California murmurs, "I must make my speech." I merely wish to say that what I said about him is true.

There is no more sincere anti-Communist in this body than the Senator

This is the way free governments have from California. disintegrated throughout history.

We, Democrats, are the only opposition to ourselves, and we are not happy about it.

I

I do not like to foul my own nest. wish I could always be on my feet saying, "My administration is right. It is doing the right thing.”

But the opposition is so weak, so decadent, so fallen, so anxious to curry public opinion, that it does not say what it should be saying.

Of course, I do not mean the Senator from California personally. I speak of the opposition collectively.

I wish all this would come to an end. I wish the Senate would revert to what

He knows that I have said this to him privately, and I have said it publicly.

I am not saying to any Senator that he is not anti-Communist. I know that all Senators are.

I am not saying that any Senator is soft on communism.

No Senator is.

I am asking, "Why not get up and talk about it? Why do Senators not speak up when these issues confront them?"

Finally, I believe that we should be about our business.

I believe the Senate should sit longer hours, and should start earlier.

We should be fulfilling our promise to the American people.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. PresidentMr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me to make an announcement?

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I do not have a better friend in the Senate than the Senator from Connecticut. I consider him an able Senator. I do not sit on his side of the aisle; I sit here with the Republicans. There are differences of opinion among my Democratic colleagues. There are differences of opinion among those who sit on my side of the aisle.

I arose earlier because I wished to speak in behalf of an amendment, neither partisan nor political in character. It is an amendment which, in my judgment, were it to be approved by the Senate and then by Congress, would represent a vindication for our American system, under which we live, and which presumably sees it flower in this Chamber in two parties, composed of Americans devoted to the perpetuation of our beloved Republic.

Because of a statement or two which my colleague from Connecticut made, let me on this occasion very briefly say that no defense is necessary for the Republican minority. The minority, through its leadership is trying publicly to tell the Nation, each week, by our comments in the Senate, our position on public questions. We deal, with respect to mutual security, not upon a partisan basis in this Chamber. We deal with it as Americans. I am glad to aline myself in the Senate with my leader, who sits next to me, EVERETT DIRKSEN, with BOURKE HICKENLOOPER, head of our policy committee, and with other Republican Senators who have tried to improve this bill, who have sought to eliminate needless expenditures here and elsewhere and who heed the words of Dwight Eisenhower and Lucius Clay on questions of foreign policy.

There is no need for any defense to be given by Republicans for the occasional differences which we share to a degree as problems arise before us; nor is there any need for our defense of the role played by the Republican Party in the life of this Nation. I pray to God that next year Republicans will offer the American people a constructive alternative to the incumbent Democratic administration and then point as best we can to those things to which we as Republicans, are eternally dedicated and ask the American people for trust in us. I am of the vigorous opinion that the Republican minority in the Senate has done its level best not simply as partisan politicians but as Americans to strengthen the hand of the President of the United States in standing before the world as a country eternally dedicated to freedom and against the Communist system wherever it may rear its head. We have vigorously differed with the Kennedy administration where we have believed it wrong, and we shall continue to so do.

Under these circumstances I simply say that on this issue which now pends, my amendment, and on the issue upon which we voted only a few moments ago, we on this side of the aisle and Senators on the other side of the aisle, also voted,

I take it, to do that which we thought was in the best interest of the people of the United States. I am thankful that there are no straitjackets in use in the Senate. Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield a minute to me?

Mr. KUCHEL. I have a speech to make. I have tried to be as generous as I can, but I wish to discuss my amendment at some length so that my discussion of it will be available to my colleagues in the Senate tomorrow. So far as I am concerned, when I have concluded my speech, I will remain to participate in further debate, as I usually do each night when the Senate is in session. Usually, I am the last one to go home.

Mr. DODD. I ask the Senator to yield for 1 minute. I am conscious of the fact that I have delayed the Senator from California. He knows my feeling for him.

vigorously contending conflicting points of view, that I observed an ideological disarray, which was being exacerbated during this debate. But let this record be crystal clear as to my position on the majority leader. MIKE MANSFIELD is a splendid American, and an able exponent of the point of view of his party. And I salute him as the leader of his party in the Senate. He is not responsible for the cross-purposes at which our colleagues on the majority side labor on occasion.

Tonight I observe additional evidence of this ideological disarray. In any event, I am grateful for the generous comments which the distinguished Senator from Connecticut has made.

Because my counterpart on the majority side, my dear friend from Minnesota, the Democratic whip [Mr. HUMPHREY], desires to comment briefly—I underscore "desires to comment briefMr. KUCHEL. I yield 1 minute to my ly"-I yield to the able Senator from friend from Connecticut.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am very much concerned about the fact that I may have been misunderstood, first of all by the Senator from California.

As I said, and he knows, I have great affection for him and cherish his friendship.

The second thing I wish to say is that I believe that perhaps what I have heretofore said on this subject might be misunderstood.

I am really devoted to the majority leader.

He has been my friend.

Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. First, the comments by the Senator from California about ideological disarray come from one who has been able to observe that phenomenon in his own party for many years. Therefore, I consider his observation to be that of the expert when he views this side of the aisle, and it has caused me some concern.

I speak for one purpose, as I have indicated to the Senator from California. I wish only to say that Senators are

I do not want the record to show that really very fortunate in having as their

I have been hard on him.

I wish I had an opportunity to say these things to him myself.

He deserves that.

He is a gentleman, he is a kind man, he is a just man, he is an honest man, he is just about everything a man should be.

With respect to what I said about him, I assure my colleagues that all that was said was said in friendship and devotion.

I hope he takes it as such.

I know that these are rumblings in the Senate, and what I have said has been said in the cloakroom by other Senators with whom I have talked, many times.

It is being said by me now, every day. We are unhappy with our present leadership.

That is all I sought to say publicly. I thought it was about time someone said it publicly.

Everyone knows that the Senate has been dragging and lagging.

That is why I expressed myself tonight.

I wish the record to show that I am devoted to MIKE MANSFIELD.

I am devoted to the assistant majority leader, too.

The Senator from California has been generous to me.

I did not want to hold up his speech. I am not backing away from the idea that the Republicans are weak.

They are.

Mr. KUCHEL. I said to our able majority leader the other day, when I observed my Democratic colleagues, not at each other's throats, but certainly rather

leader a man of complete integrity, a man who has an outstanding personality of leadership, not with the stick, but with the mind, with the spirit, and with the educated, trained experienced hand of a legislator.

I wish to be quite clear. There are many ways in which people can lead. Sometimes Sometimes one leads one leads through sheer dominance of personality. Others lead through the respect in which they are held by their colleagues; through the sense of affection and loyalty that comes from a warmth of personality and from understanding.

I know that others of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, would agree with me when I say that Senator MANSFIELD graces the Senate by his brilliant mind, his keen intellect, his unusual understanding of the legislative process, his sense of forbearance, which the position of majority leader requires more than any other position I can think of, and with a deep appreciation of the many problems which each Senator has and which each Senator brings to his attention. I am his deputy, and I get a little of the backwash, so to speak, so I can say that even I, at times, have had difficult, trying experiences.

So I speak for my colleagues tonight-for everyone of them, without exception-when I say that we are extremely fortunate to have Senator MANSFIELD as our leader.

If there has been dereliction in the Senate, if there has been any failure, I will take my share of the responsibility. I think each Senator ought to take some of the responsibility. But we have had

a heavy program this year. There have been many controversial issues. I shall not discuss them now, because the Senator from California has been most generous with his time.

NOTICE OF LATE SESSIONS

Mr. President, I wish to put Senators on notice that the majority leader asked the majority whip, before the majority leader left the Chamber, to announce that the Senate will be in session late tomorrow. That means it will be in session until at least 9 or 10 o'clock, possibly later.

I should also like to have Senators know that on October 24, the first day that the bill was before the Senate the Senate met until 5:44 p.m.; on October 28, until 4:51 p.m.; on October 29, until 5:26 p.m.; on October 30, until 5:12 p.m.; on October 31, until 6:40 p.m.; on November 1, until 6:07 p.m.; on November 4, until 6:17 p.m.; and last evening, November 5, until 5:19 p.m. If the Senate recesses by 8 o'clock tonight, we will be doing well.

I mention this because while it is true that the Senate has not had night sessions, there has been a reason for it. We

have had to make some accommodations,

and I think that today they have worked out very well. The Senate has made real

progress.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield?

Mr. KUCHEL. I yield for a brief comment.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I desire to make a comment in connection with the remarks

of the Senator from Minnesota. I join him in what he has said. In the consideration of the bill now under consideration, the majority leader has given the Senate a demonstration of the very finest qualities of leadership. This has been a difficult bill to handle. Speaking of diversity of opinion, there has been a diversity of opinion throughout the Senate. There has been excellent leadership on both sides of the aisle. I speak particularly with reference to Senators who

sat in the conferences,

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY] and the Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL] attended the conferences. There have been many more conferences than many Senators may realize, in which the Senator from California has done his best, working with the full cooperation of the leadership on the minority side, to pull together some of the divergent views of various Members of the Senate, in order to prepare a good bill, one that could be agreed upon by the membership of the Senate, one that would be in the interest of the welfare and security of the country.

I pay high tribute to the qualities of leadership demonstrated by the majority leader and the minority leader in relation to the bill, and, in fact, with respect to all matters that come before the Sen

ate at all times.

Mr. KUCHEL. I thank the able Senator from Alabama.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield 30 seconds to me?

Mr. KUCHEL. Not now.

On the amendment on which the Senate voted this afternoon, the distinate voted this afternoon, the distinguished minority leader [Mr. DIRKSEN] guished minority leader [Mr. DIRKSEN] and the distinguished senior Senator and the distinguished senior Senator from Iowa, the Chairman of the Republican policy committee [Mr. HICKENLOOPER], based on a long acquaintanceship with the problems of this kind, participated, with their counterparts, the ticipated, with their counterparts, the distinguished majority leader [Mr. MANSFIELD] and the distinguished majority FIELD] and the distinguished majority whip [Mr. HUMPHREY], and with the distinguished Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], in the drafting of an appropriate amendment.

the

Mr. SPARKMAN. Also, with Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations [Mr. FULBRIGHT] and the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont

[Mr. AIKEN].

Mr. KUCHEL. The Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Foreign Relations and the senior Senator from Vermont also participated. In my judgment, the comments of the able Senator from Ala

bama are correct.

I now yield 30 seconds to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DODD. I am greatly encouraged by the remarks of the distinguished assistant minority leader. I think he can look for more opposition. I am more encouraged by the remarks of the assistant majority leader, who assures us that we will have longer sessions. So something has been accomplished for the people.

FREEDOM OF THE SEAS: AN HONORABLE TRADITION THAT MUST BE PRESERVED

dixit and contention that they have, seaward, complete jurisdiction and complete sovereignty for 200 miles, what is to stop. them, tomorrow, from claiming, "We have sovereign jurisdiction for 400 miles"-simply by suddenly making that announcement.

El Salvador, in its Constitution of September 7, 1950, had also made a claim out to 200 miles, but added that it only made this claim provided it did "not affect freedom of navigation in accordance with principles accepted by international law." Korea is the only non-Latin American country to make such a claim. Korea, under a presidential proclamation of January 18, 1952, claimed "international sovereignty" over a zone from 20 to 200 miles in breadth for the protection, conservation, and utilization of the resources of the sea. Once again, however, it was specifically stated that the right of free navigation on the high seas would not be interfered with.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from California yield to the Senator from Missouri? Mr. KUCHEL. I yield.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I wish to say to the able Senator from California that I am much impressed with the position he is taking in behalf of American citizens thus discriminated against and injured; and I have also heard his colleague, our beloved friend the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE], speak on the same subject. I know he will be interested in analyzing carefully the record the Senaator from California is making here to

league from California [Mr. ENGLE] and night, in the interest of his people. Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, my colI have joined in coauthoring the amendment which is now pending before the Senate. Our amendment would amend section 620 of the Foreign Assistance Act prohibitions against furnishing assistof 1961, as amended, which relates to ance to certain countries, by adding the following new subsection:

(i) No assistance shall be furnished unextended, or hereafter extends, its jurisdicder this Act to any country which (1) has tion for fishing purposes over any area of the high seas beyond three miles from the coastline of such country, and (2) hereafter imposes any penalty or sanction against any U.S. fishing vessel on account of its fishing U.S. fishing vessel on account of its fishing activities in such area. The provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable in any case in which the extension of jurisdiction is made pursuant to international agreement to which the United States is a party.

When my colleague from California and I originally submitted this proposal, I noted, on the floor of the Senate, the shabby and illegal treatment which had been given the American tuna fleet by

those who should be our friends in Lat

in America.

tries have extended their territorial jurisA number of Latin American coundiction to an untenable, unbelievable distance of 200 miles seaward. In the Declaration on Maritime Zones, issued in Santiago in 1952, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru proclaimed their exclusive "sovereignty" and jurisdiction over the ocean adjacent to their respective countries to a distance of 200 miles. Think of that, Mr. President. Following their ipse

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I appreciate that comment very much, because my friend and colleague [Mr. ENGLE] and I have gone into the background of this problem; and tonight I would be able to document literally almost a hundred cases in which South American countries have reached seaward much beyond the 3-mile limit to harass American vessels. They have taken American citizens off of their fishing boats. They have fined them. They have jailed them. All this in an attempt to prevent our citizens from using the high seas for completely legitimate purposes under every recognized principle of international law. I shall try to develop this argument, so that Senators will have an opportunity to view these facts before the Senate votes on this amendment.

Mr. SYMINGTON. As I understand the position of the able Senator from California, it is that some of the countries which have been conducting operations of this type and character against American citizens are relatively large recipients of the AID program. Is that correct?

Mr. KUCHEL. The Senator from Missouri is entirely correct. It makes no sense for us to say, on one occasion, to a South American country, "We are going to help you," only on another occasion to have the government of that country abrogate the historic doctrine of freedom of the seas and keep our fellow Americans from using the high seas and the open seas as places in which to fish.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I understand that the Senator from California is documenting the assertions he is making.

Mr. KUCHEL. I am, one by one. Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Senator from California.

Mr. KUCHEL. I am very grateful to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. President, right now the high seas are being interfered with, and they have been interfered with in this hemisphere for over a decade. The high seas are res communes, the common property of all nations. This is an historic doctrine for which American and the AngloSaxon communities have fought for centuries. A resort to unilateral action by any nation to change this rule which limits the breadth of the territorial sea is a threat to the fundamental doctrine of the freedom of the seas, and certainly has no place in a world which is growing increasingly smaller and in a world where more and more nations are dependent

for their livelihood on the resources which come from the sea. It is granted that this doctrine has not always been the accepted rule of international law. In the 14th century, the combined Kingdom of Denmark and Norway endeavored to maintain the whole Norwegian Sea as a mare clausum, by claiming sovereignty over the North Atlantic between Norway and Iceland.

Similar claims were later asserted by Portugal and Spain over much of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. By the second half of the 16th century, however, Poland and England initiated the new trend, which has continued to the present day. They informed the Danes that

the use of the seas was common to all. In 1580, Queen Elizabeth I, of England, flatly repudiated the complaint of Spain against the expeditions which had been undertaken by Sir Francis Drake-expeditions which, in part, resulted in his voyage to the Pacific coast of the United States and, more particularly, to California. Queen Elizabeth declared:

The use of the sea and air is common to all; neither can any title to the ocean belong to any people or private man, forasmuch as neither nature nor regard of the public use permitteth any possession thereof.

In 1588, when the English defeated the Spanish armada, the pretentious Spanish claims were swept aside, and the potential of realizing freedom of the seas was well on its way.

By the beginning of the 19th century, the concept of the modern territorial sea, or 1-league limit, came into use by nation states. This was recognized by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in the case of The Schooner "Exchange" against McFaddon, decided in 1812.

In 1793, the United States, based on a note the Secretary of State, Jefferson, sent to the British Minister, adopted for purposes of neutrality a zone 3 miles wide all along the east coast. This zone of uniform breadth was recognized by the act of June 5, 1794.

Not all nations accepted this standard at that time. Some never have; but, with the exception of the five nations

previously noted, by and large the territorial claims of most nations have never amounted to more than 12 miles.

By the 20th century, the 1-league, or 3-mile, limit had become established as the maximum breadth of the territorial sea under international law. The English, in particular, as a great seafaring nation, have advocated the 3-mile limit. The only exception England has made was in 1951, when she recognized the was in 1951, when she recognized the validity of the Norwegian claim to 4 The Norwegians themselves miles. noted that their 4-mile limit had preceded the 3-mile limit, and, thus, had validity in its own right within the concept of the 1-league rule.

As I have stated, not all nations in the 19th century recognized the 3-mile limit, just as some do not now. Belgium, limit, just as some do not now. Belgium, between 1848 and 1852, opposed British enforcement of the 3-mile limit against enforcement of the 3-mile limit against its fishing vessels. In 1879, France reits fishing vessels. In 1879, France refused to recognize the right of Great Britain to impose penalties on its fishing boats for violating the English 3-mile fishing limit. Nevertheless, by 1900, the 3-mile, or 1-league, limit was the accepted standard by 20 of the 21 states which claimed a territorial sea. These 20 states included: Argentina, AustriaHungary, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Honduras, Norway, Russia, Italy, Netherlands,

I have previously mentioned which claimed zones up to 200 miles, the following countries made claims varying between 6 and 12 miles:

Six miles: Ceylon, Greece, Haiti, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Libya, Spain, Yugoslavia.

Nine miles: Mexico. Ten miles: Albania.

Twelve miles: Bulgaria, Colombia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Rumania, Saudi Arabia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic, Venezuela.

Forty coastal states, in 1958, claimed no more than 1 league as the breadth of their territorial seas. These states included: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Liberia, Malaya, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Sudan, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States, and Vietnam.

It is interesting to note that almost all of the major maritime countries still advocate the 3-mile limit and, thus, the freedom of the seas. Prior to the 1958 Geneva Conference, almost 87 percent of the world's merchant tonnage was registered in countries claiming no more than the 3-mile or 4-mile limit. The Geneva Sweden, Turkey, United States. Spain, the 21st state, claimed 6 miles of Conference failed to recommend an general jurisdiction.

In 1930, the Hague Conference for the Progressive Codification of International Law took place. Bernard G. Heinzen, writing on the history of the 3-mile limit in the Stanford Law Review for July 1959, noted that at this conference "The merchant tonnage of the countries supporting the 3-mile limit without a contiguous zone was over 70 percent of the tiguous zone was over 70 percent of the world's total in 1929."

In 1954, Congress enacted legislation encouraging American fishermen to fish up to 3 miles from any coast, when it directed the reimbursement by the U.S. Government for various fines which a coastal state might impose following the seizure of an American vessel "on the basis of right or claims in territorial water or the high seas which are not recognized by the United States" (68 Stat. ognized by the United States" (68 Stat. 883 (1954), 22 U.S.C. 1972(a)). Thousands of dollars have been repaid those American fishermen for the actual fines imposed. Under that act, the Secretary imposed. Under that act, the Secretary of State is authorized to take such action as he may deem appropriate in order to collect from the foreign country the amounts expended by the United States in reimbursing its fishermen. The Department of State informs me that it has not been successful in its attempts to make any collection from a foreign nation to date, despite the thousands of dollars-$131,646.80 to be exact-which we have paid out.

In 1958, the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea took place. At that time, no more than 27 of the 73 coast states claimed a territorial sea in excess of 3 claimed a territorial sea in excess of 3 miles, or 1 league. Besides the five states

article dealing with the breadth of the territorial sea. It did reaffirm, however, the concept of the freedom of the seas, the concept of res communis. The Conference did reach agreement that new encroachment upon this concept would be tolerated only when the need was clearly evident, and then only by a grant of strictly limited jurisdiction, not by an extension of territorial jurisdiction. The Conference, by at least a two-thirds majority, agreed that, beyond the territorial sea of, say, 3 miles or 4 miles, there could be an area, not more than 12 miles from shore, in which a coastal state could exercise a limited customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary jurisdiction. The Conference also agreed to the right of coastal states to exploit the resources of the Continental Shelf and to compulsory measures for the conservation of the living resources of the high seas. As Mr. Heinzen, who was a member of the U.S. delegation to the 1958 Conference, and who wrote the excellent article Í have previously cited, has stated:

The net effect of the Conference was to undercut the arguments of those who maintain that they had the right to proceed unilaterally beyond the distance of 3 miles or 1 league.

It is also interesting to note the motivations that seemed to guide many of the participants at the 1958 Geneva Conference. The Soviet Union and its satellites supported the 12-mile limit. Why?

Presumably because this would greatly increase the effectiveness of the vast Soviet submarine fleet, which in time of war would thus be able to seek sanctuary off neutral coasts up to 12

miles. The Arab bloc, which in 1958 included 10 countries, also supported the 12-mile limit. Why? Because a 12-mile limit would permit them to close the Gulf of Aqaba, which is less than 24 miles in breadth at its widest point. The next group favoring an increase in the existing territorial sea was composed of our friends in Latin America who wanted either an extension of the 3-mile limit or a contiguous zone for exclusive fishing control. In addition, there were some of the newly independent countries, members of the Afro-Asian bloc, who opposed the 3-mile limit merely on the basis that it had been established by the major maritime powers before their smaller and newer states had come into existence. This was shortsighted, to say the least, from their point of view, since they have the most to lose by attempts to harm the free flow of world commerce and economic development, and the most to gain by the capacity to fish freely the high seas.

At the 1958 Conference, the United States, in an effort to bring together conflicting interests, proposed a territorial sea of up to 6 miles, plus exclusive fishery rights in a zone extending up to 12 miles. Coastal states, however, could not exclude from the outer 6 miles of this 12mile zone the fishing vessels of countries which had fished within those waters during the past 5 years, as long as these vessels observed reasonable conservation measures which might be imposed by the coastal state.

This American proposal did not secure the two-thirds majority which was necessary. Forty-five countries supported it; thirty-three were opposed; there were seven abstentions. The Soviet Union proposed a territorial sea of at least 12 miles in breadth. This proposal was defeated, with 47 voting against, only 21 for, and 17 abstentions. The Canadian proposal for a 12-mile exclusive fishing zone received 35 favorable votes; 30 were against; and there were 20 abstentions. Thus, the 1958 Geneva Conference was unable to agree on any change in the customary 3-mile, or 1-league limit, and, in effect, by overwhelming majorities confirmed the existing rule of freedom of the seas. The United States made very clear, at the conclusion of the Conference, that its offer of a 6-mile territorial sea with a 6-mile exclusive fishing zone was merely an offer, and nothing more, and that its defeat left the preexisting situation, or the 3-mile limit, intact. The Department of State noted, in a statement of April 28, 1958, that the 3mile rule "is the principle giving the greatest opportunity to all nations, large and small, new and old, coastal and landlocked, because it is the doctrine most consistent with freedom of the seas ***. Unilateral acts of the states claiming greater territorial seas are not only not sanctioned by any principle of international law, but are, indeed, in conflict with the universally accepted principle of freedom of the seas."

There can be no question but that the 3-mile limit should be preserved, since it is the safest for navigation, especially

by smaller vessels. Many of the landmarks used by small craft are not visible at a distance of 12 miles. In fact, only 20 percent of the world's lighthouses can be seen beyond 12 miles. Certainly, landlocked states would lose the most by an extension of the territorial sea since the coastal nations would be taking from them part of the sea that was common to all and getting nothing in return. This is, of course, particularly true, as I have mentioned before, of the newly independent states, whose economic and food resources for the future might depend on their capacity to gain access to good fishing grounds. With an extension of the territorial sea, the coastal state would assume an obligation and a duty to warn foreign ships of the dangers to navigation which exist within its territorial waters. Arthur H. Dean estimated that, in the case of our own country, an extension of our territorial sea to 12 miles would mean an initial capital outlay of $8 million and an increase in the annual operating cost of $1,500,000 for each 100 miles of coastline. This would mean an annual increase of $180 million for the continental United States alone.

The fact of the matter is that an extension of the territorial sea is unnecessary in order to preserve the interests of a coastal nation in fishing. The furtherance of conservation measures for a coastal state or any other state is something which can be recognized and accommodated within the existing laws of the high seas. The Geneva Conference made a great step forward in this regard. And, of course, it is obvious that there is a fundamental difference between a nation's right of self-defense in the age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and what it attempts to do under its police power in the limited territorial jurisdiction which it seeks beyond its coastline-12 miles or even 200 miles is little protection against the ICBM.

Mr. President, the 3-mile limit is a proud heritage and legacy to be preserved in international law in the conduct of this government and the conduct of other governments in this increasingly shrinking globe. The freedom of the seas is even more important now than it was in the 16th and 17th centuries, when the smaller states fought some powers who sought to monopolize the seas, so that they could obtain equal rights and opportunities to engage in passage and in commerce.

Mr. President, I have before me a table, prepared by the Department of the Interior, detailing the number and type of seizures, detentions, and other harassments of our tuna vessels which have occurred between September 15, 1951, and June 28, 1963. A total of 77 American tuna clippers have been seized, boarded, or otherwise harassed. Many have been fined and held for weeks in custody.

Our men have been shot at. Some have been wounded. For example, back in 1955, on March 27, the Arctic Maid was stopped and shot at when 35 miles off the coast of Ecuador. The chief engineer, William Peck, was severely

wounded. The vessel was impounded, and a fine of $43,481.20 was imposed on it. This fine was paid; and the owners have been reimbursed under Public Law 680, enacted on August 27, 1954. A claim has now been filed by our Government against Ecuador for this and two other seizures which totaled in fines $61,000. Of course, not a penny has been returned to the Treasury by Ecuador. The shocking thing, however, is that our Government has not filed claims against several other nations which have also imposed fines on our fishing vessels and whose owners have been reimbursed under the 1954 act. Section 5 of that act states:

The Secretary of State shall take such action as he may deem appropriate to make and collect on claims against a foreign country for amounts expended by the United States under the provisions of this Act because of the seizure of a United States vessel by such country.

That is a rather interesting act; it is now on the statute books. At the request of the administration, Congress passed a law authorizing the Department of State to reimburse an American fisherman if a foreign counry violated the freedom of the seas, seized his fishing boat, and then required him to pay a fine. The statute empowers the Secretary of State, at his discretion, to request the offending nation-the country which violated international law-to reimburse the United States for the amount the Treasury under this act has paid to the fisherman.

On occasion, when American boats have been summarily taken by a South American country, and when, thereafter, the Department of State has made such payment to the owner of the boat, and thereafter a request has been made by the State Department to the South American country to reimburse the United States, what do you think happened, Mr. President? Obviously, we did not receive 1 penny back.

But, Mr. President, even when the Congress of the United States has generously provided that out of the public treasury shall be paid compensation to one who has thus been deprived of his property, that does not begin to compensate him for all the other indignities and, on occasion, jail sentences which have been meted out to him.

But, Mr. President, beyond all that, tonight we speak of the problems of our fellow Americans; and here is an opportunity to demonstrate to any nation, friend or foe, that the Government of the United States will not tolerate this treatment of any American citizen when he is utilizing in a legal fashion the high seas and the open seas; and we can particularly demonstrate that we will not provide any Alliance for Progress aid to any nation in this hemisphere which thus acts illegally against our citizens. That is the purpose of the amendment which my colleague, Mr. ENGLE, and I are offering.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a table of the seizures, detentions and other harassments and similar actions, commencing in 1951, and continuing

« ПретходнаНастави »