December 11, 1974
Page 39059
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Washington.
At the outset I compliment Senator MAGNUSON and Senator STEVENS, and the other members of the committee, who have been pursuing this matter so diligently. I have had the opportunity to observe their efforts closely, both in Washington and in Caracas. And their effectiveness regarding this legislation is a tribute to the leadership qualities of these two Senators.
Mr. President, S. 1988 is one of the most important bills to come before the Senate during this entire session of Congress. Simply put, this legislation would provide the United States with management jurisdiction over fish within a 200 mile nautical zone, pending the conclusion of an international Oceans agreement. The bill also provides special protection for anadromous species that are hatched in this country and then migrate out into the high seas before returning to spawn n the streams of their origin.
There is an urgent need to enact this interim legislation. Fishermen off both our east and west coasts are rapidly losing the livelihood of generations because as a nation we have not responded adequately to global developments in recent years, allowing our fishing industry to sink to a low state in our national priorities.
Specifically, within the last 5 years, the fishing effort of foreign fleets off our coasts has increased severalfold, in a way which has been so dramatically described by the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE).
At any given time large groups of foreign vessels can be sighted off our shores. In fact, the world's fishing effort is now so much greater than a decade ago that stocks can be decimated in a season or two, a rate much faster than international negotiations are likely to impose effective regulation upon them.
The situation in the Gulf of Maine is illustrative of the gravity of the situation. In 1969, Maine fishermen landed more than 54,000,000 pounds of herring. In 1973, they landed 37,000,000 pounds. In 1969, Maine fishermen landed more than 58,000,000 pounds of groundfish and ocean perch. Last year, they landed only 36,000,000 pounds. In 1969, Maine fishermen landed almost 18,000,000 pounds of whiting. Last year landings of whiting in Maine dropped to 5,500,000 pounds.
Similar declines in landings can be shown for other species. The simple fact is that as a result of a massive foreign fishing effort off our coasts in the last few years, scientists have now concluded that about 25 stocks of fish are depleted or threatened with depletion.
At present, the United States is party to 22 international fishing agreements and virtually all of the fish stocks depleted or threatened with depletion are subjects of these agreements. Obviously, further steps must be taken to prevent the depletion of our offshore stocks – for the sake of conserving the world's fisheries resources as well as preserving the U.S. fishing industry. And enactment of S. 1988 is the most effective interim step that our Government can – and should – take to manage, regulate, and control the taking of fish within 200 miles of our shores.
During the first week in August, along with Senators STEVENS and PELL, I attended the Caracas Conference. At the time, I indicated my support for S. 1988. Reaction was predictable – that this kind of unilateral action could conceivably torpedo the Conference. Well, with respect to the Conference, let me state my own view.
My first impression from visiting the Caracas meetings is that the prospects for eventually writing a new law of the sea are more promising than I expected them to be before I attended the Conference. But my second impression is that achieving that goal is going to take much longer than the more optimistic delegates to the Conference would like to suggest. After 5 years of preparatory work, the Conference is still bogged down in preliminary matters. About 60 of the 149 nations are still trying to develop their own national positions on the use of the seas, while many of the others have widely divergent points of view.
Even Ambassador Amerasinghe, the chairman of the conference, has expressed public doubt about the possibilities for progress at the conference in the near term. His colleague from Sri Lanka, C. W. Pinto, perceptively summarized the progress achieved in Caracas when he said after the meetings concluded at the end of August–
Progress has been not in bringing the sides closer together, but in clearly defining where they are farthest apart.
It is my own guess that it will take at least until 1976 before the nations represented at the conference can work out the complex range of issues – and there are some 90 of them in number – that must be worked out if a new law of the sea is to be written. Time and time again in discussions with foreign diplomats in Caracas, I heard it said that "we need time to build new international law." Certainly, time is needed for ideas to mature concerning some of the more complex issues the conferees are dealing with.
But if we are to preserve our offshore stocks, I do not think we can afford to wait until the Law of the Sea Conference produces a treaty. For by the time this takes place, there will be precious few offshore stocks to protect.
In Caracas, several foreign delegates suggested to me and the other U.S. Senators attending the conference that the United States ought not to act irresponsibly by enacting unilateral fish legislation, such as the bill before us today. If we are being asked to exercise restraint with respect to this kind of legislation, then it seemed to me not unreasonable to ask restraint in the shortrun of those who have created the problem off our coasts – the Soviets, the Germans, the Poles, the British and the Japanese. But when I suggested this to their delegates in Caracas, I met very little positive response and sensed that few of these nations share our sense of urgency about the need to protect offshore fish stocks in the North Atlantic.
And upon my return to this country, I was further disturbed by an increasing lack of restraint on the part of those countries which are fishing off the coast of my own State of Maine. Haddock is already an endangered species. And yet Britain is now beginning to fish for haddock off our coasts – in complete violation of the zero quota for haddock in the North Atlantic agreed to at the recent ICNAF meetings.
In addition, this summer there have been a number of incidents – and the number is increasing – of intrusions upon the fixed gear of our herring fishermen. These intrusions constitute nothing but wanton and apparently deliberate destruction, leaving our fishermen with little but uncertain claims against nameless perpetrators.
Where is the restraint on the part of these countries and their fishing fleets with respect to intrusions upon our coastal waters, our Continental Shelf, and our fishermen? Where is the restraint with respect to the incidental fishing that has not been negotiated under ICNAF – of lobster and other ground species? That incidental fishing goes on without any pretense of control under ICNAF. And no restraint is shown.
So I say that the lack of restraint on the part of the great maritime powers of the world is a greater danger to the Law of the Sea Conference than this legislation.
Now, there is a recent precedent for taking a hard-nosed attitude to protect our fishing interests. And that precedent has to do with the ICNAF agreements themselves.
In June of 1973, the 17 member nations of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries held their annual meeting and discussed the need to limit the total fishing effort in the Northwest Atlantic. The meeting did not produce any agreement, largely because this country could not get any other members to exercise restraint. But during the summer of 1973, in large part due to domestic political pressure, the U.S. Government announced that it would withdraw its membership from ICNAF if concrete progress was not made in 1973 to limit foreign fishing in the Northwest Atlantic. As a result, in October of 1973, a special meeting of ICNAF was convened in Ottawa at which an agreement was reached on an overall quota system for the fisheries off the Atlantic coast of the United States. The quotas reached applied to both individual species – some 54 – and to the overall fish catch.
For 1974, the overall quota was set at 929,000 metric tons. For 1975, the overall quota was to be reduced to 850,000 metric tons, with the U.S. share of the total quota increasing from roughly 20 to 25 percent in 1975. And for 1976, the member nations have agreed to set an overall quota at a level consistent with maintaining the maximum sustainable yield.
The difficulty with this agreement is that it is not enforceable. It is not being enforced now, nor is it enforceable against what the British are doing. And it is not having any effect at all in protecting our fishermen and fish gear from deliberate sabotage and destruction of their gear.
May I say that protecting our offshore fishery stocks is something more than a national interest. It is a global interest. If we coastal states do not take effective action to protect these stocks, who in Heaven's name is going to do so?
The Russian fishing fleet? The Japanese fishing fleet? There is no evidence to support any such possibility.
So I say it is proper and necessary for Congress to enact this legislation. And whatever doubts I may have had on that score before I went to Caracas have been resolved by my attendance at that conference, notwithstanding the fact that I remain convinced that an enforceable international agreement on the use of the oceans is the best way in the long run to stop the overfishing which threatens to ruin our fisheries resources.
One final point about S. 1988. And that is that this legislation is consistent with the U.S. position as enunciated in Caracas. In a major statement on July 11, Ambassador Stevenson, head of the U.S. delegation to the Conference, announced a new U.S. position on the concept of a 200-mile economic zone. At the time, he stated that–
This country is prepared to accept, and indeed, would welcome general agreement on a 12-mile outer limit for the territorial sea and a 200-mile outer limit for the economic zone provided that it is part of an acceptable comprehensive package.
The point is, moreover, that the new U.S. position accepts the concept of 200 miles for fishery management jurisdiction. It also accords with the two other fishery management proposals contained in S. 1988 – that management of anadromous species such as salmon be handled by the nation in whose rivers they spawn and that management of migratory species such as tuna be handled through international commissions.
But, Mr. President, this legislation differs from the official U.S. position in one critical respect. It recognizes the urgency of today's situation and mandates immediate interim unilateral action to regulate and conserve our offshore marine resources. This is precisely the reason why I rise to support this legislation and urge its passage.
Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON), Senator STEVENS, Senator KENNEDY, Senator PACKWOOD, Senator WEICKER, and myself, I call up my amendment which is at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to real the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
"SEC. 13. Section 4 of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742c; 70 Stat. 1121),
as amended, is further amended by adding the following new subsection:
11(f) (1) The Secretary of Commerce is authorized, under such terms and conditions as he may prescribe by regulation to use funds appropriated under this section to compensate owners and operators whose fishing vessels or gear have been destroyed or damaged by the actions of foreign fishing vessels operating in waters superjacent to the Continental Shelf of the United States as defined in the Convention of the Continental Shelf.
"(2) Upon receipt of an application filed by an owner or operator pursuant to this subsection after the effective date of this subsection by the owner or operator of any vessel documented or certificated under the laws of the United States as a commercial fishing vessel and after determination by the Secretary that there is reason to believe that such vessel or its gear was destroyed or damaged while under the control of such owner or operator in waters superjacent to the Continental Shelf of the United States by the actions of a vessel (including crew) of a foreign nation, the Secretary shall, as soon as practicable but not later than 30 days after receipt of an application, make a non-interest-bearing loan to such owner or operator from the fisheries loan fund created under subsection (c) of this section. Any such loan, as determined by the Secretary, shall be in an amount equal to the replacement value of the damaged or destroyed property and the market value of fish, if any, onboard such vessel and within such gear which are lost or spoiled as the result of such damage or destruction. Any such loan shall–
"(A) be conditional upon the owner or operator of such damaged or destroyed property assigning to the Secretary of Commerce any rights of such owner or operator to recover for such damages;
"(B) be subject to other requirements of this section with respect to loans which are not inconsistent with this subsection; and
"(C) be subject to other terms and conditions which the Secretary, determines necessary for the purposes of this subsection.
"(3) The Secretary of Commerce shall, within one hundred and eighty days of receipt of a loan application, investigate each incident as a result of which a loan is made pursuant to this subsection and–
"(A) if he determines in any such case that the destruction or damage was caused solely by a vessel (including crew) of a foreign nation, he shall cancel repayment of such loan and refund any principal paid thereon prior to such cancellation and seek recovery from such foreign nation;
"(B) if he determines that the damage or destruction was not caused solely by a vessel (including crew) of a foreign nation or solely by the negligence or intentional actions of the owner or operator of the vessel, he shall require such owner or operator to repay such loan at a rate of interest determined by him, pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, which rate shall be retroactive to the date the loan was originally made; or
"(C) if he determines that the damage or destruction was caused solely by the negligence or intentional actions of the owner or operator, he shall require the immediate repayment of such loan at a rate of interest determined by him, pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, which rate shall be retroactive to the date the loan was originally made.
"(4) The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of State shall, with the assistance of the Attorney General, take steps to collect any claim assigned to him under this subsection from any foreign nation involved. Amounts collected on any such claim shall be deposited in the fisheries loan fund.
"(5) This subsection shall apply with respect to damages or destruction of vessels or gear occurring on or after January 1, 1972.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with the distinguished Senators MAGNUSON and STEVENS. Indeed, they are cosponsors of it.
This amendment is designed to deal with a serious problem resulting from the increasing incursion of foreign fleets into our offshore waters – the problem of reimbursement of American fishermen for damage to their vessels or gear caused by foreign fishermen.
For many years, fishermen off both the east and west coasts have suffered serious and often disastrous economic losses as a result of damage to their gear caused by foreign fishermen. There are international procedures for making claims against foreign vessels which damage or destroy fishing gear. But current procedures are slow, cumbersome, and seldom effective, with the result that most American fishermen do not even bother going through the laborious process of filling out the necessary claims forms. And in a given case, even if the claims process is eventually successful, the individual fisherman with a median income of $8,000 per year is forced to carry the financial burden of between $2,000 and $4,000 for several months or longer.
This summer there were a series of incidents damaging the fixed gear of fishermen off the Maine coast. These incidents of wanton and apparently deliberate destruction by West German ships left our fishermen with only the most uncertain claims against the identified perpetrators. Under the existing procedures, the most likely result of recovery efforts is that nothing will happen.
It is bad enough that we are allowing foreign fishermen to deplete our offshore stocks and to threaten the health of the U.S. fishing industry. We must not continue to allow foreign fishing vessels to destroy the gear of American fishermen without providing adequate and immediate financial reimbursement for our fishermen.
The amendment I am introducing today is designed to meet this problem. Specifically, this legislation would require the Federal Government within 30 lays to assume financial responsibility for losses to U.S. fishermen caused by foreign vessels, pending international negotiations to recover the loss from the foreign government involved. in cases where there is reason to believe that damage or destruction did in fact occur as a result of foreign fishing activities, documented claims would be paid by the Secretary of Commerce in the form of a non-interest-bearing loan from the fisheries loan fund set up under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956.
Congress created this fund expressly to finance or refinance the cost of purchasing, constructing, and equipping, maintaining, or operating commercial fishing vessels or gear. The loan would be made in an amount equal to the replacement value of the damaged or destroyed property and the market value of fish on board a damaged or destroyed vessel or within lost, damaged, or destroyed gear. After the Secretary of Commerce has completed an investigation of the incident – an investigation which must be completed within 6 months after the loan application has been filed – the loan would be converted to a grant if it were found that the American fisherman was not at fault. If, however, the Secretary found that the damage or destruction was caused by an act of God such as a storm, the non-interest-bearing loan would be converted into a loan with interest at a rate set by the Secretary.
If the American fisherman were found to be at fault because of negligent or fraudulent activity, the Secretary would require the immediate repayment of the loan at an interest rate he deemed appropriate and the fisherman would be subject to criminal prosecution.
Government responsibility would be retroactive to January 1, 1972, since most of the serious damage done to American fishermen's gear has been done during the past 3 years.
Mr. President, I would like to add that this legislation is not only simple in its intent and construction. But if enacted, it could be administered in a straightforward and relatively inexpensive manner. With the enactment of this amendment, I would not, for example, foresee the need to expand the bureaucracy or to set up any new administrative organizations to handle claims filed by U.S. fishermen against foreign vessels. I believe the National Marine Fisheries Service, as presently structured, could handle any increase in the demands made upon it as a result of this legislation.
Furthermore, the $4 million currently in the fisheries loan fund should prove to be more than enough money to take care of any claims filed pursuant to this legislation. So it will not be necessary for Congress to authorize any new moneys with the passage of this bill.
Mr. President, as things stand today, most American fishermen feel that filing claims is hardly worth the time, money, and trouble since there is such a high probability that pursuit of the existent claims process will prove fruitless. It is imperative that the Federal Government initiate new measures to reform the claims process. The amendment I am offering today – by providing the individual fisherman with the capital he needs to get back in business while the Government negotiates with the responsible foreign governments for reimbursement provides, I feel, a reasonable approach to this problem. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I applaud the Senator from Maine for this amendment, and I would hope that he would make me a cosponsor.
In support of this amendment, I have in my office now several cases of fishermen in my State whose gear has been damaged, whose boats have been damaged, whose nets have been damaged, and they have to file a claim with a foreign government.
The Russians just settled two cases in Rhode Island, and it took 2 years to do it. By that time the fishermen were almost ready to go out of business.
I have another case in my office of a fisherman who has made a claim against the Spaniards and the Russians or Japanese.
The big question here is that we pay off when foreign governments seize our vessels down along the coast of South America, and I think the same ought to be done up here, too.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his point.
Mr. MAGNUSON. As the Senator from Rhode Island pointed out, there is ample precedent for this. We have helped our fishermen like this for years with the squabbles they have had off the western coast of South America. It just means that fishermen who are damaged, little, independent people, and often a family operation, cannot wait very long to get paid. This has worked out fine. The Government has paid the claim. The Government ultimately gets the money back sooner or later, but big government can wait longer than a little fisherman.
The Senator from Alaska and I would be glad to accept the amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment.
We have had some very serious problems in my area. I recall once when we had the new pride of the Alaskan fishing fleet on the grounds for the first time, the Viking King. A foreign trawler went across its trawl line and actually stripped the whole trawl gear out of this brand new vessel. It was laid up for the whole season and lost the entire season.
I believe that the great problem of putting one small outfit in a position of negotiating with a foreign government, and that is really what occurs on our fishing grounds, can only be met through the amendment that we have all cosponsored with the Senator from Maine.
Mr. President, I think this amendment is a very good addition to this bill. I hope in due time the whole Congress will recognize the validity of this approach.
Mr. PASTORE. Will the Senator yield for a further observation?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. PASTORE. The State Department is opposed to the pending bill, but the State Department has no qualms at all in seeing to it that when our fishermen are arrested along the South American coast, and they are fined, we reimburse them for the fine. We deduct it from the foreign aid we give them, and we pay them the balance. Then if their boats or catches are confiscated we try to do something for them.
I am saying if that is the position that we are going to be in in South America, it is about time we began to do something for our fishermen who are damaged up around New England.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his comments.
Mr. COTTON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I would like to have my name added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask that both the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from New Hampshire be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to Senator PACKWOOD, who introduced his own bill. With Senator KENNEDY, we combined our efforts to produce this amendment. I express my appreciation.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I can echo the same experiences that the Senator from Maine and others have had. Within the last 6 or 8 months off Oregon we have had Russian trawlers going right over the nets of our fishing boats.
We have had the Soviet-United States Fishery Claims Board, which has failed t, provide compensation to the vast majority of those American fishermen who have sustained damages. We have one claim of two fishermen of Oregon over a year old, with nothing done, no finding of fault or lack of fault, nothing.
If that is the situation we are going to put our fishermen in, it seems to me it is incumbent on the American Government to take some responsibility for these claims and let them argue as to whether whoever happens to run over these nets is liable.
I am delighted to join with the Senator from Maine and others in cosponsoring this amendment. I regard it as vital to the protection of our fishermen's interests.
Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to be able to join with Senators MUSKIE, MAGNUSON, KENNEDY, HATFIELD, and WEICKER in sponsoring this amendment to S. 1988, the Emergency Marine Fisheries Protection Act Of 1974. Our amendment provides a more speedy and equitable procedure for the recovery of claims brought by American commercial fishermen who have had their vessels or gear damaged by foreign fishermen.
Last summer I met with four black cod fishermen from Astoria, Oreg., who provide a vivid example of why this legislation is so desperately needed. During the last 18 months each of these four men has lost thousands of dollars of fishing gear when Russian vessels tore out their buoys and pots.
Their situation is not unique in Oregon. In February 1974 I conducted hearings in Coos Bay, Oreg., and received testimony from other fishermen complaining about harassment, intimidation, and damage to their vessels or gear by foreign fishing fleets.
Unfortunately, Oregon fishermen have found it virtually impossible to be reimbursed for their claims. The problem finds its root in bureaucratic red tape, diplomatic finagling, and in the end the burden is borne by the fishermen. And, Mr. President, this is one net our fishermen cannot handle; it is a net of overbearing circumstances which I believe our fishermen should not have to handle.
I am sure that other coastal Senators will attest to the fact that their fishermen have similar concerns. On the east coast and on the west coast, off Coos Bay, Oreg., and Boothbay Harbor, Maine, this Nation's commercial fishermen have been mauled by foreign fishing fleets that deplete our marine resources and then, if that were not enough, deliver the knockout punch of gutting buoys and pots, leaving fishing gear a mangled mess.
I believe those Americans who fish off our shores, who bend their backs and fight the sea, need a helping hand when the fight of the sea switches from pursuing fish to being pursued by foreign fleets.
What we propose would simply and efficiently provide loans in the amount equal to the replacement value of the damaged or destroyed property owned by the complainant. If the Secretary of Commerce determines the destruction was caused by vessels of a foreign nation, he is authorized to cancel repayment of the loan. If the damage involved was not incurred by actions of a foreign vessel, then the owner will be required to repay the loan at a rate of interest determined appropriate by the Secretary of Commerce.
Finally, Mr. President, this amendment was conceived in order to put the fisherman back into the business of fishing and out of channels which flow with red tape and international stalemate. It is the U.S. Government which should deal with those nations responsible for the damage done by their fleets.
The fisherman should be allowed to do what he knows best and what the nation needs most: his fishing abilities.
Loans authorized by this amendment would take the fisherman out of hock and put him back at the helm where he belongs. The Senate in passing this amendment can restore that order.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move the adoption of the amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to table was agreed to.