members from each country to seven members from each country. The additional positions will enable the United States to provide for a native Indian adviser while continuing to have representatives on the committee from all the presently represented parties.

S. Ex. G, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., III.

For the information of the Senate, President Carter also transmitted the report of the Department of State concerning the Protocol. The report, submitted to the President on March 18, 1977, by Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher, describes the function and composition of the Advisory Committee to the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission and how a U.S. court case provided the impetus for the negotiation of this 1977 Protocol:

The Convention, done in 1930, provides for a Commission to regulate salmon fishing in the Fraser River System. In addition, the Protocol of Exchange of Ratification of the Convention stipulated the understanding of the parties that there would be an Advisory Committee to the Commission composed initially of five persons from each country. A 1956 Protocol increased this number to six persons from each country. The Advisory Committee is invited to all nonexecutive meetings of the Commission and gives advice on all orders, regulations, or recommendations proposed by the Commission.

The members of the Advisory Committee are designated from the various branches of the salmon industry, including, but not limited to, purse seine, gill net, troll, sport fishing and processing. The sixth position of the U.S. section of the Advisory Committee traditionally has been filled by a representative of the reef net fishermen. The present Protocol further enlarges the Advisory Committee to provide a seventh position from each country. For the United States this position is to be assigned to a representative of American Indian fishing interests.

The 1974 decision in U.S. v. Washington, (384 F. Supp. 312 (1974); affirmed 520 F. 2d 676 (1976); cert. denied 423 U.S. 1086 (1976)), held that treaty Indian fishermen must have the opportunity to fish for up to one-half of any run of fish that normally would pass through their traditional off reservation fishing sites, with various adjustments for fish caught beyond State jurisdiction and for subsistence and ceremonial fishing.

The court in U.S. v. Washington held that U.S. treaty Indians were subject to the regulations of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission and the executive branch has worked to accommodate the court's recognition of Indian rights within the framework of the 1930 Convention. Thus, we have attempted to secure extra fishing time for U.S. treaty fishing Indians in areas under Commission regulation. Addition of an Indian member to the Advisory Committee is another positive step in accommodating the Federal court decision and in pursuing our overall policy of extending representation to all groups with a vital interest in fisheries

matters.

Id. 1-2.

The Convention for the Protection, Preservation, and Extension of the Sockeye Salmon Fishery of the Fraser River System was signed on May 26, 1930 (TS 918; 50 Stat. 1355; 6 Bevans 41; 184 LNTS 305; entered into force on July 28, 1937). The Protocol amending the Convention of May 26, 1930, for the Protection, Preservation, and Extension of the Sockeye Salmon Fisheries to include Pink Salmon in the Fraser River System was signed on Dec. 28, 1956 (TIAS 3867; 8 UST 1057; 290 UNTS 103; entered into force July 3, 1957).

For further information concerning United States v. Washington and the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, see the 1975 Digest, Ch. 7, § 4, pp. 414-417.

U.S.-Cuba

On April 27, 1977, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Terence A. Todman and Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Pelegrin Torras signed a Governing International Fishery Agreement (GIFA) for their respective governments concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States. The agreement, which is pursuant to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, establishes the principles and procedures under which Cuban fishing would take place in the U.S. 200-mile fishing zone. The agreement does not guarantee to vessels of Cuba an automatic right to fish; it provides the means by which Cuba may apply for permits which would allow fishing up to a level specified by U.S. authorities for certain kinds of fish which have been identified by U.S. authorities as surplus fish above the harvesting capacity of U.S. vessels.

U.S.-United Kingdom

On October 7, 1977, President Carter transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification the Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom, signed on June 24, 1977. The President also transmitted a related Agreed Minute, initialed on June 24, 1977, and a report of the Department of State.

In his transmittal letter the President described in part as follows the reciprocal fishing rights that the Agreement would establish between the commercial fishing industries of the United States and the British Virgin Islands:

The Agreement provides United States commercial fishermen access to the new 200-mile fishery zone of the British Virgin Islands and commercial fishermen of the British Virgin Islands access to the 200-mile United States fishery conservation zone. It secures the United States objective of providing for U.S. commercial fishermen the opportunity to continue fishing at traditional levels in areas which have recently become subject to the fishery jurisdiction of the British Virgin Islands.

S. Ex. O., 95th Cong., 1st Sess., III.

The report of the Department of State, submitted to the President on September 17, 1977, by Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher, outlines the provisions of the Agreement, describing, inter alia, the affected fishery zones, the existing commercial fishing patterns reflected in the Agreed Minute, and consultative mechanisms to resolve future problems. Set forth below are portions of the report:

The Preamble to the Agreement recognizes that the two Governments apply the principle of equidistance in allocating exclusive fishery jurisdiction over areas where the 200-mile fishery zones of the United States and the British Virgin Islands overlap. Therefore, each Government exercises jurisdiction over that portion of the area of overlap which is on its side of a line equidistant between the two coastlines.

.. Article I identifies the exclusive fishery zone of each Party for purposes of the Agreement. Articles II and III provide that commercial fishing by vessels of each Party may continue in the exclusive fishery zone of the other "in accordance with existing patterns and at existing levels." Each Party extends access to vessels of the other for the purpose of conducting such fishing. In order to provide a yardstick for interpreting and applying this standard, the two Parties initiated, concurrently with the Agreement, an Agreed Minute setting forth specific information that reflects the existing patterns and levels of commercial fishing by vessels of each Party in the zone of the other Party.

Article IV provides that each Party will have exclusive authority to enforce the provisions of the Agreement and applicable national fishery regulations in its zone with respect to vessels of the other, provided that such national regulations shall not disturb existing patterns and levels of fishing. Article IV constitutes recognition by each Party of the fishery jurisdiction of the other. At the same time, Article IV reflects the understanding that each side, as its domestic management system proceeds, may apply specific regulations to commercial fishing by vessels of the other in its zone, provided that such regulations are consistent with the standard, set forth in Articles II and III, that they do not disturb existing patterns and levels. Article V emphasizes that the Agreement does not address recreational fishing by one Party in the zone of the other.

Article VI states that circumstances under which consultations may be held at the request of either Party (e.g., whenever either Party seeks a change in existing patterns and levels of commercial fishing). [sic] Article VI also states that if such consultations result in a decision to amend the Agreement, such amendments shall enter into force through an exchange of diplomatic notes.

The consultations provided for in Article VI provide a mechanism for the Parties to work out any problems arising, in the implementation of the Agreement and to coordinate efforts for effective conservation of the fishery stocks of the area. In keeping with the nature of the fisheries relationship between the United States and the British Virgin Islands, such consultations are expected to be

informal and would include participation by local representatives on both sides, particularly from the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Management Council on the United States side.

*

Id. VI.

In his report to President Carter, reprinted in S. Ex. O, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., V-VI, Deputy Secretary Christopher explained why the Agreement does not meet the criteria of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act for a governing international fishery agreement:

Establishment of a 200-mile United States "fishery conservation zone" under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (effective on March 1, 1977) placed under United States jurisdiction fisheries which fishermen from the British Virgin Islands have traditionally fished. Similarly, establishment of a 200-mile fisheries zone around the British Virgin Islands on March 7, 1977, placed under jurisdiction of the British Virgin Islands fisheries which United States fishermen from the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico have traditionally fished. Consultations with United States fishermen and officials in the area, including the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Management Council, indicated a strong United States interest in reaching an agreement with the United Kingdom to ensure continuation of United States commercial fishing at traditional levels in the British Virgin Island fisheries zone.

Because of this recognition of existing British Virgin Islands interests in the United States zone, the Agreement does not meet the criteria for a "governing international fishery agreement" as defined in the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The congressional oversight procedures provided in that Act for bringing a “governing international fishery agreement" into force therefore cannot be used for this Agreement. Consequently we are seeking the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification of the Agreement.

Conservation

The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany submitted a diplomatic note dated December 8, 1976, to the Department of State indicating that the fishery research vessel Anton Dohrn was scheduled to carry out a scientific research program in the Gulf of Maine from February 26 to April 7, 1977. The note incorporated a fact sheet which described the purpose of the research as a "Young Herring Survey" for the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF). Specifically samples of "Fish- and PlanktonSamples" and "Hydrographical investigations" were to be obtained by "Bottom-trawling for fish, Plankton-Sampling with Plankton-nets, Hydrographic work. . . ." The Embassy requested the necessary permits.

In a reply diplomatic note dated February 25, 1977, the Department. of State interpreted the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94–265; 90 Stat. 331; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) as permitting such activities under certain conditions:

Scientific research, including fisheries research, is specifically excluded from the term "fishing" in Section 3(10) of the Fishery Con

257-179 O 79 38

servation and Management Act of 1976. It should be noted, however, that the following specific activities are considered to be fishing within the meaning of the Act, and therefore require a permit issued in accordance with Section 204:

Any activity involving the catching, taking or harvesting of fish in commercial quantities, or the use of gear capable of catching, taking, or harvesting fish in commercial quantities, including:

1) the conducting of tests of fishing gear; or

2) fishing carried out for the purpose of training fishermen. Fisheries research which assists in the conservation and management of the stocks, and the identification of the fishery resources of the Fisheries Conservation Zone is encouraged. With this in mind, the specific activities outlined above, when undertaken in full cooperation with the United States, shall not be deemed to be fishing within the meaning of the Act.

Accordingly, from the information given with the above-mentioned note, no permits are required for the proposed scientific research program. The appropriate United States authorities are being informed of the program.

Clearance is granted for the proposed visits of the Anton Dohrn to Woods Hole on March 10-11 and March 26-27. In accordance with established procedures, the master should inform the Captain of the Port twenty-four hours in advance of each visit.

Dept. of State File No. P77 0031-1462.

$5

The Deep Seabed and the High Seas

Ocean Mining

On October 4, 1977, Ambassador Elliot L. Richardson, Ambassador at Large and Special Representative of the President to the Law of the Sea Conference, testified before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Resources of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation concerning S. 2053, a bill to promote the orderly and environmentally sound exploration for and commercial recovery of hard mineral resources of the deep seabed, pending adoption of an international regime. His testimony also dealt with S. 2085, a similar bill designed to provide interim legislation dealing with deep seabed mining pending the entry into force of an international regime on this subject.

Portions of Ambassador Richardson's remarks follow:

Last Spring, prior to the Sixth Session, I testified before a number of congressional committees to the effect that we did not support