September 26, 1963
Page 18190
ADDRESS BY SENATOR MUSKIE ON THE PROBLEMS OF OUR FISHERIES
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our distinguished colleague, the Senator from Maine, Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, delivered an address on September 25 to guests of the sixth annual New England fish and seafood parade dinner held in Boston, Mass.
Senator MUSKIE has long been a friend of our fishermen. He has again shown this in his recent address, by a straightforward articulation of the major factors contributing to the fishing industry's plight; namely, inadequate fisheries research and antiquated fishing fleets.
I invite the Members of Congress to give their close attention to this analysis of the problems confronting a once flourishing industry, and the legislative remedies which he reviews for our careful study.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator MUSKIE'S address be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
ADDRESS By SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE
It is always a pleasure for me to visit Massachusetts, the home of so many distinguished Americans -- past and present -- from President John Adams to President John F. Kennedy. We in Maine are proud that we share a common heritage with our sister State of Massachusetts. Until 1776, we were both part of the same English colony. Until 1820, as citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we elected the same Governors. Although we then became separate States, we have remained good neighbors, sharing many responsibilities, many accomplishments.
One element of our common heritage is our Nation's fishing industry. It was here in Massachusetts in the early days of the 17th century, in Boston, Plymouth, and Salem, that the commercial fishing industry of the United States was born.
We in Maine take no back seat, for it was in Bath in 1607 that the Virginia, the first vessel constructed by Americans, was built. By 1762, a commercial shipyard, which built hundreds of fishing vessels, was in full operation in Bath. Bath today continues in the same tradition, building missile frigates for our Nation's defense.
Together, Maine and, Massachusetts have participated in the development of the American fishing industry. New Englanders built the clipper ships. New England fishermen on whaling expeditions to the south seas founded many a New England fortune.
No fishing grounds were too far, no risks too great for them. From that position of worldwide preeminence, we have witnessed a decline in the fortunes of our fishing industry. Instead of our fishermen bringing their catches from the South Pacific, we have sighted Russian and Japanese vessels fishing within our 3-mile limit.
In 1956, the United States ranked second to Japan as a fishing nation. In 1961, we followed not only Japan, but also Peru, Red China, and the Soviet Union.
Our national fish catch has not increased since 1940, but our fisheries imports have increased approximately 400 percent.
Bringing the problem a little closer to home, imports of groundfish and Atlantic Ocean perch fillets have risen from 107 million pounds in 1952 to 221 million pounds In 1962, an increase of 107 percent.
What is the cause of this predicament? What can be done to rebuild our fishing industry?
The problems of our fishing industry are clear and obvious -- inadequate fisheries research and an antiquated fishing fleet, coupled with competition from foreign fishing industries which benefit from extensive government support in these areas. For our government to ignore these problem areas would amount to national neglect.
Of all domestic industries utilizing natural resources, the fishing industry has been the most neglected. In fiscal year 1961, the U.S. Government spent $5.8 billion on agricultural programs -- $68 million on mineral resources. The total outlay on programs for the fishing industry was $35.4 million. In addition to being the most neglected of all natural resource industries, the fishing industry has had to bear the brunt of foreign competition from low-wage, subsidized foreign fishing industries.
The record shows that the duties collected on foreign fish imports have risen from $6 million in 1936 to $16 million in 1961. During that same period, the value of foreign fishery imports has risen 10 times from $40 million in 1930 to just under $400 million in 1961.
Four times the domestic fishing industry has approached the Tariff Commission requesting relief. Twice the Tariff Commission recommended that action be taken. On both occasions, President Eisenhower rejected the Tariff Commission's recommendations on the grounds that our relations with other countries would be adversely affected.
Through 1961, our Government had extended a total of $297 million in foreign aid to other countries to help them build up their fisheries to compete with us. Incredible as it may sound, this sum of $297 million exceeds by about $88 million the sum our Federal Government had spent on our own fishing industry during the same period.
As chairman of the special Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, I find it ironic that while Federal, State and local governments have spent millions of dollars in preventing the pollution of our inland and coastal waters, relatively little has been accomplished in the development and promotion of the food resources of these waterways.
I could continue on listing in great detail the neglect and the obstacles which have burdened our once flourishing fishing industry. The past record has been dismal, but I am pleased to report that there is a growing realization in Congress that the fisheries industry is important to the future of the United States. Massachusetts can take a great deal of credit for the change in the climate of opinion. Massachusetts Senators have worked long and hard for the development of a healthy, productive fishing industry. Leverett Saltonstall, John F. Kennedy, and now Ted Kennedy have been active in this fight. Special credit should be given to Ben Smith, who was brought up in the Gloucester fishing industry, who knows the problems the industry faces, and dramatized them in his memorable address before the Senate last year, when he proposed a realistic program for our fisheries.
As you all know, Ben is now an ambassador. He has been appointed as our Nation's first ambassador for fisheries. This is a significant recognition of the importance of the fisheries industry. Moreover, the President has picked the right man to do the job.
The improvement in the legislative climate for fisheries legislation can best be measured by the number and variety of fisheries bills before Congress for consideration. We all know there is a vast difference between introducing a bill and enacting it into law, but based upon the action taken thus far, I do feel there is reason for optimism.
I would like to review briefly the more significant fisheries bills which are before the Senate by describing their content and noting their present status.
All Americans are deeply concerned with violations of our international waters by foreign fishing vessels. Several Japanese and Russian vessels have been sighted within 3 miles of the Alaskan coast. There has been a longstanding need for both the strengthening of American laws prohibiting foreign fishing in our territorial waters and the establishment of effective penalties and procedures to enforce these prohibitions.
A fine of $10,000 or imprisonment of up to one year or both are specified in Senate bill 1988 introduced by Senator BARTLETT, of Alaska. In addition to enforcing our laws within the 3-mile territorial waters limit, this bill would also cover a 200-mile limit on the Continental Shelf with respect to fishing for crabs and other fish resources attached to the ocean floor. This legislation has been approved by the Senate Commerce Committee; and it has been cleared for floor action by the Senate Democratic policy committee.
This is one instance in the history of Congress where no opposition was expressed. Republicans and Democrats, the Navy and the Coast Guard, the Interior and State Departments all agree that this legislation is needed and should be enacted. It is expected that the bill will pass the Senate.
Senator ERNEST GRUENING, of Alaska, and I have introduced legislation, S. 1816, designed to increase our territorial limit from 3 to 12 miles. If Congress should take action on both these bills, our fishermen would have additional waters they could fish exclusively and our Coast Guard would have the power to enforce U.S. authority in these waters.
Twenty-eight nations already enforce a larger territorial limit than 3 miles. The largest limits are those enforced by Chile and Ecuador, 200 miles. The Canadian Government has announced its intention of instituting a 12-mile territorial waters limit in mid-May of 1964, measured from headland to headland. This is of critical importance in New England. The limit would encompass enormous areas such as the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the Atlantic side and Queen Charlotte Sound on the Pacific. It could include the Bay of Fundy.
Prime Minister Pearson has indicated that traditional and treaty rights of the United States would be taken into consideration. President Kennedy has indicated that he will reserve our rights. Our position in what have been traditionally joint fishing areas should not be jeopardized.
Regardless of any action taken by Canada, our country needs this limit as a matter of self-protection. If we do not look out for ourselves, we can be certain that fishermen from other nations will not hesitate to move in and deplete the stock of fish resources adjacent to our coast.
But this legislation does not solve the major problems which face our fishing industry. Neither of these two bills would affect foreign fishing activities outside a 12-mile distance from our coast. The primary operations of foreign fishing interests take place beyond that point. This August the Coast Guard counted 169 Russian fishing vessels off the Georges Banks. To compete successfully outside our territorial waters, we must revitalize our fishing industry so that it can cope with the state subsidized efforts of foreign nations.
Although commercial fishing is a serious area of cold war competition, it is much bigger than that. In addition to the Soviet Union, fisheries competition comes from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and a host of other nations. All these countries heavily subsidize their industries both in terms of fisheries research and fishing vessel construction. If our Nation is to come to grips with the issue, Congress must act and act soon, to give our fishermen a fair chance.
Up to this point, the struggle to provide adequate funds for fisheries research has met with complete frustration. The original intent of the Saltonstall -Kennedy act was to provide research and marketing funds to stimulate expanded activities in these fields, particularly at the State level. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries has been forced to use most of its research funds for continuing programs on a national level. The Bureau is doing an excellent job in the research field, but it is unable to provide the financial support required to stimulate research urgently needed on specific fisheries products at the State level.
It is no secret that State legislatures are hard pressed for revenue sources. They must search for financial support elsewhere. In view of the present state of our fishing industry, Congress must meet this urgent need.
I have cosponsored Senate bill S. 627, which would provide an annual $5 million in funds to be divided among the States for the establishment of research programs designed to meet each State's individual problems. The bill should encourage better cooperation and coordination of research by State and Federal agencies, eventually resulting in the overall national improvement of our fish catch. The Senate has passed the bill. It is now under consideration by the House of Representatives.
You are all familiar with the law passed in 1792, which requires that American fishermen must purchase U.S. built vessels. The cost of these vessels is high. The subsidy is relatively low. Foreign fishermen can purchase low-cost, modern, well-equipped so-called factory ships heavily subsidized by their governments.
The practical result has been that we operate small, obsolete vessels while foreign fleets have added large, modern ships equipped with the latest in technological devices. These foreign fleets, because of their superior equipment and consequent lower operating costs, have had great success in edging their way into traditionally American fishing grounds and our own domestic markets.
We cannot compete with foreign fleets when 50 percent of New England's large trawlers are more than 20 years old. If our fishing fleet is to survive, we must give our fishermen the tools to do the job. Passage of Senate bill S. 1006 approved by the Senate Commerce Committee to increase subsidy payments on fishing vessel construction from 33⅓ to 55 percent would be one important step toward solving the problem.
Research, more modern fishing vessels, new approaches to the problems of the industry are the key to future success. I hope we can develop a fish protein concentrate industry which will use our Nation's fish resources to feed the food-starved countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Here we can combine a successful business operation with the humanitarian goal of feeding the underdeveloped nations of the world. It has been estimated that this process might account for the sale of some 300 to 500 million additional pounds of New England fish each year. The problem lies in obtaining approval of the process by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has thus far forbidden the sale of fish protein concentrate in the United States unless the fish used in the process have been cleaned, decapitated, and detailed.
If this process were required, the production cost of the concentrate would hike expenses so much that the product could no longer be profitably produced. Furthermore, it would not result in a more wholesome product. "FPC" is pure and wholesome now. I am hopeful that this controversy can soon be successfully resolved. Through the development of fish protein concentrate, our country could make a significant contribution to the future of mankind.
Our Nation has embarked on a comprehensive program of oceanographic development. The Interagency Committee on Oceanography, under the direction of President Kennedy's scientific adviser, Dr. Jerome Weisner, formerly of M.I.T., is planning and coordinating an all-out scientific attack on oceanic problems, with the objective of unlocking the secrets of the ocean depths.
The real problem in this area has been one of emphasis. The need for an all-out program of oceanographic research is recognized by our Nation's scientists. Some experts feel that the advantages to be gained from our oceans could prove more valuable than the benefits which can be derived from outer space. A greater public awareness of the importance of oceanography is required. The House of Representatives has passed a bill, H.R. 6997, which specifically expresses our commitment to a national oceanographic development program. Hearings on the bill have been scheduled for October 24 before the Senate Commerce Committee. Passage of the bill will help to provide a much needed stimulus toward the further development of a resurgent fishing industry.
All the problems I have discussed thus far merit rapid consideration by Congress. It is time for effective legislative action. The commercial fishing industry of the United States has been shortchanged by the U.S. Government for far too long. Beyond this, however, the fisheryies industry needs to show drive and initiative.
The Massachusetts fishing industry has effectively committed itself to an attack on the problems of the industry. I wish to commend you for the work you have done in sup porting the construction of two new and modern fishing trawlers, the M. V. Massachusetts and the Sturgeon Bay. In addition, your work in the development of fish protein concentrate and the construction of an FPC pilot plant in New Bedford reminds me of the spirit our ancestors showed in developing the clipper ship and the whaling industry.
The American fishing industry is still the most vital fishing industry in the entire world. We have the capability, the experience, and the ingenuity. You in Massachusetts have begun to make individual commitments to revitalize the entire domestic fishing industry. You have shown that you are willing to tackle this immense problem on your own. Those who proudly represent the commercial fisheries of the United States in Congress will make every effort to see that our Federal Government assists you, rather than penalizes you; that it works with you; and that it helps provide the tools to do the job.