December 11, 1974
Page 39081
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the RECORD letters that the proponents of the bill have circulated.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. SENATE,
December 6, 1974.
DEAR COLLEAGUE: A vote in the Senate on S. 1988, the "Emergency Marine Fisheries Protection Act of 1974" may take in the near future. By this letter, we wish to dispel the misinformation which opponents of this much needed conservation measure have used to prevent its passage.
First of all, it is conceded by all that important coastal species of fish off our shores are severely depleted and that, despite 22 fishery agreements with other nations, further depletion is likely to occur if a solution to the overfishing problem is not found soon. Since agreement on and ratification of a final, effective Law of the Sea treaty will not be achieved until perhaps 1980 or later, if at all, unilateral action by the United States to protect its fisheries must be taken if the fish off our shores are to be saved. In our view, the action proposed by S. 1988 will prevent further depletion without tremendous cost; will not seriously damage our security interests; and reflects the current views of most coastal nations. Furthermore, the bill will not create "gunboat wars" since it does not automatically or totally prohibit foreign fishing in the claimed 200 mile fishing zone.
S. 1983 will prevent depletion of fishery resources. Patterned after the United States fisheries position put forward in the UN, Law of the Sea Conference, S. 1988 would provide this nation with management jurisdiction over coastal and anadromous stocks of fish. The bill is founded on the rationale that a coastal nation has a much greater stake in protecting the fish off its shores than do long distance fishing nations whose fleets can move elsewhere if the fish disappeared.
With management authority out to 200 miles, the U.S. will be able to control the massive foreign fishing effort it cannot now control.
S. 1988 will not damage our national security interests. Statements that other nations may, or will be entitled to, "retaliate" by curtailing the freedoms of navigation and overflight are both highly speculative and without foundation. First of all, why would other coastal states which also want extended fisheries jurisdiction have any desire to "retaliate" in any fashion? Approximately 36 coastal nations have extended their fishery limits in the ocean beyond 12 miles, the existing limit of U.S. fishery jurisdiction. In addition, another 25 to 30 nations have indicated their support for a 200 mile fishery limit in the Law of the Sea Conference.
Consequently, S. 1988 reflects current international thinking on the question of fishery limits.
Since this bill expressly preserves the freedoms of navigation and overflight and relates only to fishing, it is inconceivable that other nations will, or could, effectively use S. 1988 as a precedent for restricting navigational or overflight freedoms. Furthermore, there is simply no general world support today for restricting these freedoms. In 1966, when the U.S. Congress established the present 12 mile fishery limit (over similar Defense Department opposition), no "retaliation" took place. There is no reason to expect it if S. 1988 is passed either.
S. 1988 would not be difficult or costly to enforce. Ironically, opponents of S. 1988 argue that a 200 mile limit would be impossible and extremely expensive to enforce. We must point out that the United States has stated in the Law of the Sea Conference that it would accept a treaty containing a 200 mile fishery jurisdiction limit.
In other words, the U.S. will be patrolling a 200 mile limit sooner or later irrespective of what happens to S. 1988. Nonetheless, we believe that the Coast Guard cost estimates are exaggerated and that fishery areas can be successfully policed at a more reasonable cost.
First, many nations will respect our zone and to the extent they do, S. 1988 will be self-enforcing.
Secondly, our own fishermen will do some of the surveillance since the foreign fishing operations which hurt fish stocks the most are easily seen, large-scale fleet operations covering broad expanses of water, usually in well-known fishing areas. And lastly, the Coast Guard cost projections ignored the use of satellites and other remote sensors for detection of violators, a cheaper method of enforcement than aircraft and ships. Additional vessels and planes will be needed, but at modest levels and certainly not all at once.
S. 1988 will not create a "fish war" danger. It is often said that S. 1988 will lead to conflict somewhat similar to the recent "cod war" between Iceland and Great Britain. That conflict was created because Iceland totally prohibited foreign fishing within its claimed 50 mile zone and refused to negotiate with Great Britain to accommodate English fishermen's traditional fishing rights. S. 1988 is a completely different measure.
It would not eliminate automatically and totally all foreign fishing within the 200 mile limit. In fact, all existing foreign fishing done pursuant to treaty would be maintained. Instead, it is the intention of the bill to negotiate with other nations to reduce their efforts to levels commensurate with conservation needs, while recognizing their traditional fishing rights. With the preferential rights afforded our fishermen in the bill and with management responsibility, this nation will be in a stronger bargaining position to control the foreign effort. As we see it, S. 1988 is the kind of bill the International Court would approve.
We urge you to join with us in taking this vital step toward conserving and protecting our oceans' living resources. The continued viability of one of mankind's primary sources of food hangs in the balance.
Sincerely yours,
Warren G. Magnuson, Henry M. Jackson, John 0. Pastore, Edward M. Kennedy, Edmund S. Muskie, Ernest F. Hollings, Thomas J. McIntyre, Ted Stevens, Lowell Weicker, Bob Packwood.
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C.,
December 6, 1974.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR: As you know, the Senate Committee on Armed Services last week reported favorably on S. 1988, the "Emergency Fisheries Protection Act of 1974", which would establish a 200-mile fisheries conservation management zone off U.S. coastal shores.
The Commerce Committee earlier reported the bill favorably after holding 14 public hearings here in Washington and in various coastal states. Foreign Relations Committee adversely reported the bill by a close 9-8 vote. Hopefully, S. 1988 will soon be on the floor for consideration. By all appearances, the vote would be close.
Senators from coastal fisheries states, most of whom support the bill, believe this is a measure of critical importance to the survival of our fisheries, and we urge you to join in assuring its passage. The three committees have compiled comprehensive information confirming the high degree of destruction inflicted on our coastal fisheries by huge foreign fishing operations. The problem is recognized by our government, which has introduced fisheries articles similar to the provisions of S. 1988 into the U.N. Law of the Sea Conference. Still, our State Department objects to any action on the bill during the interminable deliberations of the Conference.
The fundamental controversy over S. 1988 is one of timing, not concept. Having served as a Congressional Advisor to the U.S. Law of the Sea delegation, I support the over-all effort and believe international law governing the oceans is desirable. However, I also believe fisheries is one issue that cannot wait for the achievement of a comprehensive treaty and that a temporary, emergency conservation management move dealing with fisheries only, such as envisioned by S. 1988, will do no warm to ongoing negotiations.
Those opposing the bill have reiterated the inflexible position held through the years that any zonal expansion by the U.S. could create a threat to national security. Members of the Committee on Armed Services faced this issue squarely during three public hearings. Despite high-level military testimony, including that of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the majority of the Committee concluded that the legislation would create no particular problems to national security. Armed Services Committee Report No. 93-1300 is newly available and has had little time for circulation. Consequently, I am attaching for your information a copy of pages 4 and 5, which discuss national security considerations and state the Committee conclusion.
Please call me if you wish to discuss this important bill further. Also, I have asked Bud Walsh (4-9347) and Bud Costello (41251), of the Commerce Committee majority and minority staffs respectively, to cooperate in any way possible to provide your staff with any additional information requested.
With best wishes,
Cordially,
TED STEVENS,
U.S. Senator.