56 



The U.S. definition of onr own territorial sea is 3 miles from a 

 certain deliiied baselirie. Most other countries define, 3, 6, or 12 miles 

 as their limit. 



There is a U.S. proposal to negotiate internationally a generalh/ 

 agreed limit to end some of the confusion of distances. We have pro- 

 posed the possibility of agreeing on 12 miles, provided that that agree- 

 ment would allow for freedom of passage and overflight of interna- 

 tional passage. 



Senator Ixoute. Thank you A'ery much. sir. 



Dr. Froscii. Now, in connection with these points of definition, I 

 would like to point out that the administration bill. S. 3183, does not 

 present any such problems of definition related to international law, 

 since it uses the definitions, where necessary, that are in accord with 

 that, and we would suggest that these definitions be used in whatever 

 legislation is approved. 



The second general observation on these bills relates to the need 

 to have a proper balance between Federal Government responsibil- 

 ities and State and private responsibilities in the development and im- 

 plemental of the programs covered by these bills. Of course, we are 

 particularly interested in insuring that national security consider- 

 ations are reflected in the establishment of these programs. 



And in particular, we believe that certain subsections of S. 3460 

 and S. 2802 do not adequately recognize the need to consider mission 

 or statutory responsibilities of Federal agencies that are aside from 

 their responsibilities in the coastal zone, and in particular, those sub- 

 sections could be construed to give the Marine Council and the States 

 the power to veto projects and programs in Federal agencies specifi- 

 cally authorized and directed by the Congress. 



The two bills provide only that, in preparing the master plan, the 

 coastal authority examine the land use regulations and plans of the 

 various governmental bodies whose jurisdictions extend over the 

 territory in the coastal zone and that they consult with the Federal 

 agencies that are affected. 



The administration bill, on the other hand, recognizes the impor- 

 tance of full cooperation by the States and the Federal agencies in 

 the development of the State coastal zone management plans. 



This bill would require the Secretary of the Interior, before he ap- 

 proves a State's program, to find that the plan was developed in co- 

 operation with relevant Federal agencies and other interests, and, after 

 soliciting the views of those agencies, to mediate any serious dis- 

 agreements. 



Nevertheless, we consider that even this procedure does not provide 

 sufficient protection from potential encroachment by State coastal au- 

 thorities for essential national security activities within the coastal 

 zone. 



Accordingly, we recommend that section 19(g)(1) be changed to 

 read as follows: 



"The Secretary*' — and the bill defines the Secretary in each case as 

 being the Secretary of the Interior — "The Secretary shall not approve 

 the plan submitted by the State pursuant to subsection (d)"' — and here 

 is the new wording suggested for introduction — "unless he has sought 

 the advice of the Secretary of Defense on matters of national security 

 and the views of the other Federal agencies, principally affected by 



