Mr. CRANSTON. Oh, in a way, Senator Stevens. The lines developed by the Federal Government which do go from headland to headland and perhaps may be said to be similar to a straight baseline concept, actually existed before the concept was recognized in the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, and even before the concept was recognized in the U.K. v. Norway decision in 1952. The Federal regulatory areas as-using a headland-to-headland theory existed as far back as 1924. They didn't call them straight baselines then, and so the State referred to those preconvention lines as straight baselines. But they were clearly similar, and clearly support our historic claim to those waters.

What we are saying now is that the Federal Government should recognize that fact, and make official what has been history, and institute a system of straight baselines under the convention on the Alaska coast.

Senator STEVENS. Didn't the old fish and wildlife regulations have lines quite similar to the Pearcy lines?

Mr. CRANSTON. Yes; they did. I think the Pearcy lines were an attempt to graphically depict the old fish and wildlife regulations. Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Cranston, I notice that you have many commerical aircraft, tour aircraft, and small aircraft in Alaska. Does the State exercise jurisdiction over the operation of these aircraft?

Mr. CRANSTON. Are you, Mr. Chairman, talking about such things as air taxis?

Senator INOUYE. Yes.

Mr. CRANSTON. Yes; we do require licensing of air taxi operators in Alaska.

Senator INOUYE. Does the CAB exercise jurisdiction over the fare scheduling?

Mr. CRANSTON. This is an area I must confess a certain lack of familiarity with. I believe in certain areas, the CAB does do this. But I'm just unable to answer your question with any degree of certainty. Senator INOUYE. It might be well for the State of Alaska to look into a decision which I believe was delivered by the district court in Hawaii about 6 years ago. It was ruled that the waters between the islands were international in nature, and therefore aircraft flying from one island to the other was actually operating interstate and not intrastate. As a result, they came under the jurisdiction of all Federal regulatory agencies. And outside the scope of any State regulation. I would presume that if these lines become permanent and if aircraft should fly over them, they will be flying interstate, not intrastate. It might be well if you look into this.

Senator STEVENS. Go off the record, if you will?

(Off the record.)

Senator INOUYE. Back on the record again. I would like to call Mr. David Hickok, director of the sea grant program at the University of Alaska.

STATEMENT OF DAVID HICKOK, DIRECTOR, SEA GRANT PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT GOLDBERG; LOWELL WAKEFIELD; AND HON. CLEM TILLION, STATE REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. HICKOK. Mr. Chairman, may I bring others who were on the witness list, who are more or less together?

Senator INOUYE. Of course.

Mr. HICKOK. In the interest of saving time for us?
Senator INOUYE. Surely. Mr. Robert Goldberg.

Mr. HICKOK. Mr. Lowell Wakefield.

Senator INOUYE. Yes. Mr. Tillion also?

Mr. HICKOK. We should be honored to have Mr. Tillion.

Senator STEVENS. He has to go back to the legislature, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. HICKOK. We would be glad to defer to Mr. Tillion.
Senator INOUYE. Would you like to testify first, sir?

Mr. TILLION. Yes.

Senator INOUYE. The committee is most honored to welcome the Honorable Clem Tillion, who is the distinguished minority leader of the Alaska State House of Representatives. Welcome, sir.

Mr. TILLION. Thank you. I received correspondence from Milton Bruning, chairman of the American section of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, asking me to show up at this meeting. So, I will be wearing a different hat for part of it. They lodged some violent objections with the State department at our last annual meeting, which happened to have been held in Alaska. The biggest objection we had, of course, was the fact that the United States, with the issuance of these new charts, was backing off from a position that they had held for many years prior to statehood. And in effect, the issuance of these charts were giving up areas that had traditionally been under the U.S. jurisdiction.

I am a lifetime commercial fisherman. And we understood in Cook Inlet, for instance, that salvage was only applicable outside of a line from Cape Douglas to Gor Point. We used to have to-anything we found, we used to have to prove it was outside of that line. We might have stretched a point or two, but

Today, we feel that if oil had not been found in that basin, the Federal Government really wouldn't have been too interested in preempting what since 1924 has been traditionally U.S. waters. In all theirI'm sure the fishery regulations were presented. But prior to this last little scramble, why, the regulations used to say, "those territorial waters inside of such and such a line," but in many of these districts, they omitted that. For instance, Cook Inlet, they said, "all of the waters inside of Cape Douglas." You know, from the standpoint of marine pilotage, for instance, these would cause a great deal of difficulty that we have never experienced before.

And the only point that I would like to bring out, and I'm sure these gentlemen would substantiate it even better, is that with these lines, we are giving up something that we have had at least since 1924. And we feel just to stress a point for the State Department, who is opposed to baselines-that they shouldn't give up something that has been traditionally under the jurisdiction of the United States. And this was the position of the Commission, which isn't just Alaska.

Senator INOUYE. Has the Legislature of the State of Alaska taken any position on this matter?

Mr. TILLION. Yes, we have. But, of course, I don't know how much impact a State legislature would have. Naturally, all of them are somewhat paternalistic over their own waters. So I was stressing the point as a—I am chairman of the industry advisors for California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, and this is the point that we were stressing, that don't step back and give up something you have already had. At a time when nearly every other nation in the world is attempting to extend its jurisdiction, to take a position that you are not going to extend yours prior to the Geneva Convention, is one that might be good politically. But I see no reason for the United States to give up something they have traditionally held. And that's the only point that ISenator STEVENS. That's why we are here.

Mr. TILLION. And I will see you gentlemen this evening.

Senator STEVENS. Fine. We are very grateful to you for coming, Clem.

Mr. TILLION. I'm sorry I couldn't sit here all day.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. We will now receive testimony from a panel consisting of Mr. Hickok, Mr. Goldberg, and Mr. Wakefield. How do you wish to proceed?

Mr. HICKOK. I will just make a few introductory remarks, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Please do, sir.

Mr. HICKOK. First may I say it's an honor to see you again. I haven't seen you since the 89th Congress. I was working in Washington for a while. And we have a lot of situations here in Alaska which are quite akin to Hawaiian ones. Through the sea-grant program, Jack Davidson and I do interact in many areas with the University of Hawaii. Senator Stevens, it's a privilege to be before you, also.

I have only a few comments in conceptual thoughts, and then I would like to turn it over to these two gentlemen here who have a great deal of expertise in this area.

In my view, to be very candid about this, Alaska has responded to this territorial sea question in the most reactive way. We really haven't studied it out, marshalled our facts as well as we might have. We have responded in newsprint to the problem perhaps more than could have been done with a substantive study on some of these things. There have been some minor efforts to collect facts in the past. There was a study in the Department of Natural Resources a few years back that leaned heavily on the Norwegian fisheries case to present a situation of State ownership on a straight baseline concept. However, the amalgamation of facts in that really brought together, rather than separated, the seabed problem and the fisheries problem. The Norwegian fisheries case, which was the prerequisite of that study, was used to apply to the seabed situation as well as the fishery zones.

We have an opportunity here, the facts are available, all they have to do is be put together on the historic, economic, and environmental factors of the coast of Alaska, and we need a concerted forum developed here in the State that would develop a State position. I think we need a State position in Alaska that is articulated well and supported by facts, as much as the honorable gentleman from Fiji might do for the Fiji Island situation or we might do for the Trust Territories of Hawaii, or any other place.

Now, to me, the essential needs of developing this position are-is one basic aspect. That is, to divide the seabed issue, per se, from the fishery zone issue, per se. And at stake are two different value systems. At stake are two different values of supporting the law behind them. The fisheries question I think can be answered, and I think can be supported and solved in a very, very short time. The State Department has indicated to some of us privately that they would welcome a well-articulated position by the State of Alaska on the fisheries zone question. And I think particularly from Southeast, from the Dixon entrance or right through up through Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and at least past the Shelikoff Straits, is ample evidence at this moment in time to support a straight baseline fisheries zone of considerable simplicity and backup.

Beyond the Unimak Pass and into Bristol Bay and around, is a different ballgame entirely on the historic information, economic information. But I would only suggest here that anything that you gentlemen could do to assist the State or urge the State, if you will, to really marshal its facts and divide up the issues, and attack them in an intelligent, systematic way, would be all to our collective good.

With that, I would like to defer to my colleagues.

Senator INOUYE. Is it your contention that the facts marshaled by the Executive Office of this State are insufficient?

Mr. HICKOK. Yes, sir; that is my contention.

Senator STEVENS. Are you suggesting that we pursue a double standard in terms of the coastline with one related solely to fisheries, and the other related to the seabed issue?

Mr. HICKOK. Senator, I do not think that we necessarily have to have a double standard in the long run, but I do think we need a double standard to tackle the problem and win, one step at a time. I think we have to tackle it in the way to win. And I think it can be tackled if it is divided. If it is lumped together with seabed oil revenues and other questions of this character, then with a court case in Cook Inlet still in the action-with the budget, the Federal Bureau of the Budget requiring revenues of a tremendous amount just to do ordinary business. I don't see how we are going to win that case in the immediacy, and I do think we can win the fisheries zcne case, particularly from Southeast, Southcentral, Cook Inlet, very, very quickly, just on the facts. Administratively.

Senator STEVENS. That is a very interesting concept. Of course, in the long range, the State's history, the fisheries would be more important anyway.

Mr. HICKOK. I certainly concur with that, Senator.

Senator STEVENS. That's a very interesting suggestion.

Senator INOUYE. Is it your understanding that the facts, as presented to date, justify the State Department's support of this provisional baseline?

82-091 0-72- -5

Mr. HICKOK. I think the sinuosities of the coastline certainly reflect the U.S. position, as it is know generally. I don't agree that it historically reflects the Alaska one. But in terms of a national policy—and the sinuosity of coastline is virtually the U.S. position and has been for many, many years. I don't agree with it. I think we can tackle it on straight baseline concepts in Southeast and Southcentral, perhaps as far as west of the Shelikoff Straits. Beyond there, I think we are into a different situation historically and economically to justify tremendous long straight baselines across, say, Bristol Bay, something like that.

Senator INOUYE. Do you believe that these waters, which are now circled in red on those maps, would constitute historical waters of Alaska?

Mr. HICKOK. Oh, yes; without any question.

Senator INOUYE. As such, do you believe that the State of Alaska could and should exercise jurisdiction over them?

Mr. HICKOK. Yes; I do. But I think we have to-in terms of dealing with the Federal Government-have to really provide a proven subjective case, documented case, and this has not been done.

Senator STEVENS. I believe the Alaskan delegation is trying to document its case now.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Mr. Goldberg?

Mr. GOLDBERG. Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, my name is Robert Goldberg. I am an associate professor of law at the University of Alaska, with the sea grant program at the University of Alaska. I should explain that this is a part-time appointment, because I am also a practicing attorney in Anchorage. It is as much a labor of love as it is anything. It is the nature of this appointment which brings me here today, and if I could have your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the slightly broader questions involving the State's role in this whole developmenet of the law of the sea, with respect to the forthcoming Geneva Conference, which I suppose conceivably could involve, and quite possibly might render moot, some of the questions which are being considered here today, depending on what territorial sea is accepted and what judgments with respect to baselines, might possibly be reaffirmed or reen forced.

It's the story of a small State, one many thousands of miles from Washington, D.C., which I think is in the process of struggling and has to struggle to develop a coherent position on all these questions, the seabeds, territorial seas, and fisheries. It's certainly, I think, no secret to our congressional delegation and to those in the Executive Office of the importance of the sea and the relation of the issues which are being discussed at this forthcoming Geneva Conference to Alaska. We do have more than 50 percent of the coastline of the United States, as I'm sure you have heard, Mr. Chairman, and a very, very substantial section of its Continental Shelf. In addition, we do have very wealthy and important fisheries off our coast.

I would submit that certainly among most of the States we have a great deal to gain or lose by the consequences of what might happen in Geneva in the coming year. I believe Senator Stevens has been among those in the forefront of asserting Alaska's case in Washington, to make sure that in fact, when it is all added up, we would hope that Alaska would be in the credit side coming out of the Law of the Sea