JOURNAL - OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 25, 2005
• Sequence Number: 33
• Publication Date: April 17, 1975
• Content Type: NOTES

,ou rna,Ppp~4tvteid, ForfRgleasea2i905I11~21t~ CIAI:RDP77M00144R000600120033-0 I~ i f
Thursday -- l / Apr11 197i
1.9. (Unclassified
}:'au.l..L'indley (I. , 111.. ) hi
the Congressman cited in
.!t~i1~1i ? ~..l i~a I sf(aL
- D134) Called the officc of Coil,,-.)
order to request documentation of sonic state:i~~e Its
introducing his National. Security Act anendiient:s
(11. It. 5873). l was told that FindlcyIs aide, Mike Hall, had written the
stati.inoel, and I requested that. he call Inc: ti>rnorrow when lice returns to work.
20. (Unclassified -- 1)ii'.M) 1Ucccived a call from the ofa'i.(.!c of
Congressman Andrew ..lviiagni.re. (1). , N. J. ), who inquired &W her we mriight.
have at record of some testimony given in 19111 about. it spy ring, ' I replied
that the CIA only went: back as far as its; predecessor orjoniratiori, OSs,
which was Jorrnecl during 1?WWorid War 1:L, and that, I doubted we had any 1 1)1 8
testimony. I suggested that the office contact. the Library of Congress or
the 1:)elcnsc Department.
21. (lJn.c ]assi.fied _. DI`M) Called George Gilbert 1Q to report
that the Agency has no comments on the reports O NM is planning to .about.
to the Tlot.iso Corm ;iittee on Merchant Marine and 1'i shel i.es on the La.w of the
Sea. checked within l)1)] and determined this position.
ZZ. (Conf.i.dent:i.al -- ,S1M) 11ricfed 14m htiaecton, Minority SQU,
1-lou.sc Interuat: onal. Relat:i.orrts Coninnti.ttee, on the main points of i.titerest to
CIA of the 7 Ivhtrch 1975 draft of the Murphy Commission report on hitclli.'~;erice.
No documents were loft with Mr. Sniecton and, it was made clear to him that
the briefing was i.n.forn:ta.l and did not constitute an official Agency posi.t:ion.
Mr. Srn.eeton. requested the briefing on behal.f of and, in. Ids capacity as staff
assistant to Representative Wi]l.0111 S. Broorifield (IC.. , lvi:i.ch. ) recently
appointed to the Murphy Coirrtmi"ssi.on. Mix. Sinteetotri st::res;;ed that: lie regarded
the discussion its, educational for ltirt.iself and(, indirectly, for die belusfil of
Representa.t:ire Broot>>ficlca? who is also at member of the Oversight Subco:rnodt:12,5X1
of the House .l:nt:ernatio.nal Relations Co.miiii.t.tee.
23. (Unc:lassified GBC) Acco31._1pa.r1ied. the Director,
Carl Duckett and. jack lIeus and to a briefing of t.hd I-louse ppro- 25X1
pri.ation.s Committee 1)eferise Subcommittee oil the Agency and hatelaigeace
con.-iniuni.ty budgets. See Memo for Record. This briefing; will be continued
l... 1'"i::'!,i J? . 1\1"!_ i, i K X CIO Tn.
M!
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
 STA
STA
STA
T
11-4f-~ IF
TTTTqffi
SENOERWILL FI ION T
~
U NCLASSIFE CO
QP'~ICIAL~DUTING SLIP
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INITIALS
2
3
4
5
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FILE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks:
Bob:
Here's the OMB report which needs
approval by Friday.
Assistant Legislative Counsel
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
FROM: NAME. ADDRESS AND PHONE NO.
DATE
OLC 7D35
4/15/75
CONFIDE
UNCLASSIFIED
SECRET
40
FOR1M N0. 237 Use previous editions
-1157
(
)
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
 9,S-- MDR
proved Fo X J Iv5V ffil,,~ M
_ &IFFTT
April 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO: Legislative Liaison Officers
Department of Commerce Agency for International Development.
Department of Defense Central Intelligence Agency
,.Department-of the Interior Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Justice Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Transportation National Security Council
Department of the Treasury National Science Foundation
SUBJECT: Clearance of two proposed reports from the Law
of the Sea Task Force on legislation to extend
the contiguous fisheries zone of the United States.
.Attached for your review are two proposed reports prepared by
the Law of the Sea Task Force expressing the views of the Executive
Branch on several bills to extend the U.S. contiguous
fisheries zone. These reports are substantially similar to
previous reports and testimony cleared for presentation to
the Congress.
In order to expedite clearance of these two reports, we
would appreciate receiving any comments your agency may have
by FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1975. After that date, we intend to
clear the reports, subject to the agency views we have
received. Because of the similarity of these reports to
those previously cleared, we will assume that agencies not
responding by the above date concur in the proposed reports.
As in the past, each report will be forwarded to the Congress
with an appropriate cover letter signed by the Assistant
Secretary for Congressional Relations, Department of State,
along the lines of the attached copy.
Hyde, Jr.
/-' ant Director
or Ld`gis /ve Reference
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP77M001/44R000600120033-0
 proved For Release 2005/11/21 CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Washington, D.C. 20520
Honorable Leonor K. Sullivan
Chairman, Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Madam Chairman:
This letter presents the views of the Executive Branch
on H.R. 197, 200, 948, 1452, 1839, 2172, 2173,712,
4633- It is in response to your requests to individual
departments, which requests were in turn referred to the
NSC Interagency Task Force on the Law of the Sea, in
accordance with Executive Branch procedure.
The bills would extend the United States' contiguous
fisheries zone from its present width. of nine mimes be-
yond our three-mile territorial sea to various distances.
H.R. 200 also provides for the extension of United States
jurisdiction over anadromous fish of U.S. origin to the
full limit of their range in the oceans, except within
the territorial waters or fisheries zone of another
country. Under the bill the Secretary of State is also
required to seek, inter ilia, treaties or international
agreements with, appropriate foreign contiguous States on
the boundaries between the waters. adjacent to the United
States and waters adjacent to such foreign countries for
the purpose of rational utilization and conservation of
the resources covered by H.R. 200.
We recognize that the coastal fishermen of the United
States have encountered severe problems in recent years
and that overfishing for some species has caused a de-
pletion of the stocks involved. 'Accordingly, we are
sympathetic to the need for a solution to the genuine
problems which have prompted these bills. However, in
our view the best solution can be attained by multilateral
agreement in the Third United Nations Conference on the
Law of the Sea. The first substantive session of the
Conference was held in Caracas from June 20 to August 29,
1974; the second substantive session of the Conference
will be held in Geneva from March 17 to May 10, 1975.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP77MQ0144R000600120033-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
- 2 -
As you are aware, we forcefully put forth our fisheries
position at Caracas and made substantial progress towards
our fisheries goals. A fully enforceable solution to
the fisheries problem must be an international nego-
tiated one supported by the community of nations. A
unilateral declaration of fisheries jurisdiction at this
time could seriously undermine our efforts in the Law
of the Sea Conference and hamper the chances for a satis-
factory settlement of the fisheries questions on a multi-
lateral basis.
At the Caracas session of the Law of the Sea Conference,
a large majority of nations, including the U.S., supported
broad coastal State controls over coastal fisheries in a
200-mile economic zone. Thus, the outcome of the LOS
Conference is likely to be an international agreement
which will substantially enhance coastal State, and thus
United States, control over coastal stocks. In addition,
we believe it is important that a rational, effective
international management system for highly migratory
species, as well. as host State regulation of anadromous
species, be established.
Recognizing that the Law of the Sea Conference will take
time to complete its work and that there will be additional
delays pending ratification, there is indeed an interim
problem with respect to our coastal fisheries. In light
of this problem, we have taken steps to enhance the pro-
tection of our coastal stocks and to alleviate the problems
of our coastal fishermen until a new international legal
system for fisheries management is established. First,
we have proposed that the fisheries regime agreed to by
the Law of the Sea Conference go into effect on a pro-
.visional basis pending the actual entry into force of the
treaty. Second, we are working to strengthen both bi-
lateral and multilateral agreements with nations whose
nationals conduct fishing operations off our coasts.
.Third, we have adopted stringent new enforcement guidelines
for the protection of our continental shelf fisheries re-
sources.
As an example of U.S. multilateral efforts, the Inter-
national Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
(ICNAF) has developed a highly sophisticated and complex
fisheries regulation system which governs the taking of
all desired species, thus reducing the by-catch of species
.of importance to American fishermen. The overall foreign
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP771VL00144R000600120033-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 _CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
catch quotas in this area, lowered in 1974, will be fur-
ther reduced by approxim,?tely 12% during 1975 and will be
lowered again in 1976. U.S. catch quotas will be going
up during this period. In addition, the regulatory system
has been frequently refined during recent meetings to
afford greater protection to American fishermen interested
in haddock, yellowtail flounder, and herring. Moreover,
the system of international enforcement of the ICNAF regu-
lations is being constantly improved. Through all of
these actions the strong special interest of the coastal
nation in coastal species has been recognized. Thus,
our coastal fisheries have achieved, and will continue to
achieve through international agreement, a substantial
degree of the coastal protection desired by American
coastal fishermen.
Furthermore, in December, 1974, the U.S. and Japan reached
agreement concerning fishing in the northeastern Pacific
and Bering Sea. The new agreements established new and
better balances between fishing effort and the abundance
of the resource. Some principal features of the US-
Japanese understanding include a reduction in the Japanese
catch of pollock of 400,000 tons; special controls on the
Japanese harvest of various fin fish in the area by means
of catch limitations as well as area and time closures;
mutual arrangements regarding loading and transfer oper-
ations and restricted fishing in areas where U.S. fishermen
concentrate their efforts; and new procedures by the
Japanese to reduce and control the incidental catch of
king and tanner crab. The Japanese also agreed to reduce
their quota of'king crab from 700,000 to 300,000 tons
(a reduction of nearly 60%) and to a smaller reduction
in their total tanner crab catch (but with a 70-80 percent
reduction in the areas traditionally fished by U.S. crabbers).
The two countries also made arrangements for enforcement
measures more stringent than any ever before agreed to by
them, including an opportunity for the U.S. to observe
the conduct of fishing operations on Japanese vessels.
It should be noted that ICNAF includes virtually all fish-
eries off our Atlantic coast, and that the Japanese con-
duct by far the largest fishery off our Pacific coast.
However, the international protections we have are not
limited to the examples cited above. We have additional
arrangements on both coasts with a number of nations for
the further protection of U.S. fishery interests.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
We feel that these steps have significantly increased
the protection of our coastal stocks, although we recog-
nize that the problem is far from fully solved. While
the bills under discussion are attempts to provide added
protection for our coastal fisheries during this interim
period, we believe that the legislation could nevertheless
have serious harmful consequences both for the Law of the
Sea negotiations and for the long-term fishing interests
of the United States.
Implementation of this legislation would constitute uni-
lateral action by the United States at the very time the
world community is seeking a new regime for international
fisheries through international agreement. Such unilateral
action, in our opinion, runs counter to established funda-
mental principles of international law. It is the view of
..the United States that under existing international law
no State has the right unilaterally to extend its fisheries
jurisdiction to 200 miles, and we do not recognize such
claims. A departure from this principle by the United
States could encourage similar claims by other countries.
The nature of such foreign claims would not necessarily be
influenced by the interim nature or "reasonableness" of our
own action, and could include claims to other alleged rights
such as those affecting navigation and overflight, straits,
and scientific research. Moreover, this action could lead
some States to-seek to delay or to impede the work of the
Conference, thus threatening the possibility of agreement.
It would disrupt our cooperation with like-minded States
in the Law of the Sea negotiations and could directly
undercut our fisheries proposals in the Conference. The
interim character of the legislation does not render it
less troublesome in these respects. Furthermore, in our
opinion, the harm done to overall national interests in the
achievement of a successful international agreement by this
type of unilateral action would far outweigh any short-
term, interim benefits.
Moreover, a unilateral extension of our contiguous fisheries
zone as outlined in these bills would not fully protect
all our fishing interests, which are both coastal and dis-
tant. Our distant water fishing interests, such as the
tuna and shrimp industries, would actually be prejudiced by
our unilateral action. The United States would be compelled,
in effect, to recognize extended fisheries zones of other
coastal States, at least to the extent of our own unilateral
claim, and, in addition to a direct effect on our distant
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
fishing rights, this would have detrimental implica-
tions for the coverage of the Fishermen's Protective
Act of 1967. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe
that distant water fishing nations would recognize our
unilateral claims, thereby creating serious foreign policy
and enforcement problems. In order to be effective, the
extension of jurisdiction contemplated under these bills
would require a substantial increase in enforcement
capability to patrol adequately the expanded area.
Admiral O. W. Siler, Commandant of the U.S. Coast
Guard,
_reported on the Coast Guard's current planning in
this
regard in his letter to Mr. Murphy dated August 23,
1974.
In the Law of the Sea Conference, the United States has
introduced a fisheries proposal which is based on accept-
ance of a 200-mile economic zone and which offers a
rational management system for the United States fishing
industry, as well as the diverse interests of the Inter-
national community.
Our proposal is based on an approach that reflects our
overall view that coastal State control over coastal
species within the economic zone and host State control
over anadromous fish should be subject to international
standards and compulsory dispute settlement so as to pro-
tect the interests of all States and the international
community in general. The jurisdiction exercised by the
coastal State'bver coastal species would be limited to
the zone. Each coastal State would have a preferential
right to that portion of the allowable catch it could har--
.vest. The remaining portion would be open to harvest by
fishermen of other nations, subject to nondiscriminatory
coastal State conservation measures and reasonable fees
to defray their share of the cost of such regulation.
The extent to which the coastal State preference would
reduce traditional distant water-fishing would be deter-
mined through negotiation at the Law of the Sea Conference.
Under our proposal, anadromous species would be subject
to the jurisdiction of host State of origin. On the
other hand, highly migratory stocks, such as tuna, would
be managed by international organizations in which all
fishing and coastal States could participate. These
organizations would manage stocks subject to the same
international standards and compulsory dispute settlement
procedures as envisioned for coastal species.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP77N M00144R000600120033-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
As indicated above, at Caracas a large majority of nations
supported broad coastal State control over coastal fish-
eries. Even major distant water fishing States recognized
that an overall Law of the Sea treaty will include greater
protection for coastal States' fisheries interests than
exists at present. Thus, we feel that the best resolution
of the fisheries question can be attained by multilateral
agreement in the Law of the Sea Conference.
Furthermore, from the standpoint of the rational manage-
ment of marine. resources, all fishing activities--both
.domestic and foreign--must be considered. Provision must
be made for the development of regional fisheries manage-
ment plans prepared on the basis of advice and input
from State government officials and affected local in-
terests. The Federal Government must hold a position of
general leadership and authority for regulating fisheries,
but this leadership and authority must be exercised in
cooperation with the State governments and other interests.
We are developing such management plans so that, at the
conclusion of the Law of the Sea Conference, we will be
?,y able to move quickly to institute effective management
over the resources off our coasts.
For the reasons stated above, the Executive Branch opposes
the enactment of the bills discussed in this letter.
The-Office of Management and Budget advises that from
the standpoint of the Administration's program there is
no objection to the submission of this report.
Sincerely,
John Norton Moore
Chairman, the NSC Interagency
Task Force on the Law of the Sea
and Deputy Special Representative
of the President for the Law of
the Sea Conference
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
 roved For Release 20G5141 C21 o,CI DP77M00144R000600120033-0
The Honorable Leonor K. Sullivan
Chairman, House Merchant Marine
and Fisheries Committee
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20510
This is in response to your request for individual
agency comments on H.R. 1840. The following re-
sponse from the NSC Interagency Task Force on the
.Law of the Sea represents the coordinated comments
from those agencies represented on the Task Force.
H.R. 1840 would modify the system for delimiting the
United States contiguous fisheries zone to include the
use of straight baselines where applicable under the
terms of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone. The bill does not change the method
of delimitation of the territorial sea. Changes such
as those proposed by this bill would provide only
limited protection for the U.S. coastal fisheries,
while at the same time representing a basic modifica-
tion in the long-standing U.S. policy concerning use
of straight baselines. As you are aware, we are in-
volved in intense negotiations concerning a new fish-
eries regime in the United Nations Conference on the
Law of the Sea. We believe that these discussions will
lead to a long-term fisheries solution which will meet
the objectives of protection of U.S. fishermen, which
is the concern behind this legislation, far better than
this bill or other forms of unilateral extensions of
jurisdiction which are now under consideration.
Further, during testimony on this legislation, in 1973,
we noted some technical problems with the bill. While
the bill has been redrafted, we continue to believe
that the bill could create pockets of high seas between
tie seaward boundary of the territorial sea and the
inner boundary of the contiguous zone where straight
baselines are used, and thus that the technical problems
continue to be applicable.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
For the reasons set forth above, the Executive Branch
does not support enactment of this bill. The Office
of Management and Budget advises that from the stand-
point of the Administration's program there is no ob-
jection to the submission of this report.
Sincerely,
John Norton Moore
Chairman, the NSC Interagency
.Task Force on the Law of the Sea
and Deputy Special Representative
of the President for the Law of
the Sea Conference
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000600120033-0
 roved For ReleaseP2OO5/11/21T CIAWPP~$MO0144ROOO600120033-0
Washington, O.C. 20520
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Your request for the views of several Executive Branch
departments and a cncies on has been referred
to.the Department of State for the preparation of co-
ordinated Executive Branch response by the National
Security Council Interagency Task Force on the Law of
the Sea.
That position is set out in the enclosed Task Force
report.
If I can be of-any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact me. .
Sincerely,
Assistant Secretary
for Congressional Relations
Approved For Release 2005/11121 : CIA-RDP77M0O144ROO0600120033-0