September 26, 1974
Page 32728
EMERGENCY MARINE FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, I have just finished reading the unfavorable report (S. Rept. 93-1166) by the Committee on Foreign Relations on S. 1988, the bill to extend on an interim basis the jurisdiction of the United States over certain ocean areas and fish, previously reported favorably by the Committee on Commerce (S. Rept. 93-1079).
I take this opportunity to associate myself with the Additional Views in the Foreign Relations Committee report by the senior Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and the junior Senator from
Rhode Island (Mr. PELL).
Mr. President, the Foreign Relations Committee has pending before it S. 1134, a bill to provide the Secretary of the Interior with authority to promote the conservation and orderly development of the hard mineral resources of the deep seabed, pending adoption of an international regime therefor. It was favorably reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in Senate Report 93-1116.
I have taken the liberty of inserting, in brackets, in the Additional Views, the words "mineral resources" wherever the word "fisheries" appears and additional comments. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
As part of the rather substantial minority within the Foreign Relations Committee that voted for a favorable report on S. 1988, we as New England Coastal State Senators believe it particularly necessary to prepare these additional views strongly supporting the passage of this legislation.
Together we have closely followed and participated in the development of the U.S. position and the preparations aimed at establishing an international legal regime governing the uses of the oceans. Both of us have been named as Senate Advisors to the U.S. Delegation to the Third UN Law of the Sea Conference and have actively discussed the aims and progress of this Conference with both the United States and foreign delegations. [The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs also named Advisors to the U.S. Delegation.]
From a philosophical and idealists point of view, we both believe that a comprehensive multilateral treaty is necessary to solve the numerous problems associated with ocean space.
However, with respect to fisheries [mineral resources], it is our belief that the delays in negotiations and the time needed to conclude an agreement of this magnitude will not realistically serve our country's best interests. At the present time, there are 149 nations participating in the UN Law of the Sea Conference, many of which have not determined their own national policies or interests. These countries hope to deal with approximately 81 items, each having various degrees of importance to certain groups of countries. Four years of preparatory meetings have done little to reconcile the wide disparities between these nations and their ocean interests. Consequently, we believe that it will be very difficult for the Conference to complete its tasks by 1975, and that interim action is essential to prevent the further depletion of our own U.S. coastal fish species [to prevent the loss of the fragile lead now enjoyed by the United States in the technology necessary to discover and develop the mineral resources basic to our economy].
In New England, the problem is particularly acute. [In the United States, the problem is particularly acute. Recently we have had an example of the effect on the American economy when a group of raw material producers band together to increase their economic and political clout. According to the most recent statistics available, the United States is importing about one-third of the oil we need. But our dependence on foreign sources for the essential ingredients of steel is more than 90 per cent. At the same time, the minerals we need are available on the bottom of the ocean and there is substantial evidence that American industry can find and recover these minerals without impairing other uses of the oceans and with every regard for the purity of their waters.] Since the early 1960's, foreign fishing has severely reduced the number of our coastal stocks. The National Marine Fisheries Service indicates that Atlantic haddock, herring, menhaden, yellowtail flounder and halibut have been severely depleted, some to a point where they may never recover. Although the United States is party to a large number of international fishery conservation conventions, most of these agreements fail to contain realistic or effective enforcement provisions. Consequently, these arrangements have miserably failed in their efforts to stop over-exploitation. [These arrangements have failed to stop the governments of the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan from encouraging their nationals to develop seabed mineral resources.]
We have been told by both foreign delegates and by the Administration that it takes time to negotiate solutions to these very important international problems. We have been urged to use restraint and to await the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference. However, we fail to discern similar restraint being exercised by foreign trawlers off our New England coasts [by foreign governments on their nationals seeking seabed minerals], nor do we see any bilateral agreements being concluded to the same effect. We firmly believe that a generally acceptable treaty on fisheries [mineral resources] will not be negotiated and implemented before the late 1970's, and that there is a serious danger of a further depletion of our coastal species [of a loss of the fragile technological lead now held by American industry]. Therefore, we feel that it is in our best national interest and in the interests of conservation to adopt the emergency interim measures contained in S. 1988 [S. 1134] designed to regulate, control and protect the fishery stocks within 200 miles of our coasts [to regulate the activities of the U.S. nationals including every regard for other uses of the ocean as they head seaward for the minerals we must have].
It should be noted and emphasized that the testimony received by the Foreign Relations Committee indicates that the provisions of S. 1988 [S. 1134] are totally consistent with the current fishery [mineral resource] goals of the United States at the Law of the Sea Conference and are meant to be interim only. Sections of this bill specifically state that if the Law of the Sea negotiations produce an acceptable agreement which is ratified by the Senate, this legislation will be preempted. Consequently, we strongly urge our fellow Senators to vote for the passage of S. 1988 [S. 1134].
Mr. President, I congratulate my colleagues on their views. I hope they prevail when the Committee on Foreign Relations reports S. 1134.