March 5, 1975
Page 5310
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Washington, Mr. MAGNUSON, in cosponsoring legislation to extend U.S. fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles from our coasts, until an international oceans agreement can be negotiated.
Similar legislation was adopted by the Senate in the last Congress, but was not brought to the House floor for a vote.
This proposal is essential to the well-being of our fishing industry; and it is essential to the conservation and rational exploitation of an important world source of protein.
There are many reasons why Congress should act quickly on this legislation. I would like to touch on three.
First. Quick action is essential to the preservation of our rapidly dwindling fisheries resource. The world demand for protein has put enormous new burdens on our stocks of fish. Within the last 5 years alone, the foreign fishing effort off our coasts has increased severalfold. Stocks can be decimated in a year or two, a rate much to fast to be dealt with effectively by international negotiations. Scientists have now concluded that about 25 stocks of fish are depleted or threatened with depletion.
Fish landings in Maine demonstrate the gravity of the situation in the Northwest Atlantic. In 1950, Maine fishermen landed 353 million pounds of fish of all species. By 1970, that total had been more than cut in half, and in 1974 fish landings totaled only 148 million pounds.
The statistics for individual species are more dramatic. Since 1966 the whiting catch has declined by 90 percent, from 30 million pounds to 3 million in 1974. Since 1950 the catch of sea herring has declined 75 percent; ocean perch, 61 percent; cod, 30 percent; pollock, 42 percent; and haddock, 97 percent, from 6.5 million pounds in 1950 to 220,000 pounds last year.
Clearly, our fish stocks are in trouble. And it must be the United States, not the Russians, English or Japanese, which takes action to protect this important source of protein.
Second. International negotiations on the law of the sea are unlikely to conclude this year. Senators PELL, CASE, STEVENS, and myself – as Senate advisers to the U.S. delegation to the Law of the Sea Conference, attended last year's meeting in Caracas. We concluded that the Conference had so far failed to make any form of substantive progress because of its inability to overcome regional and group politics. We pointed out that the delegates at Caracas have gone about as far as they can in the development of a technical and nonpolitical base for a final agreement. We urged that this whole matter be taken up by the heads of state, or at least at the ministerial level. As we said in the report, the negotiations cannot be left to those of lower rank because the questions that are holding up the agreement cannot be settled as technical matters. They require compromises and trade-offs that can only be negotiated at the political level.
We also agreed that it is imperative that the negotiations reach agreement by the end of 1975. Should the Conference go beyond its scheduled time-frame, the chances for success will be considerably diminished.
I cannot report optimistically on prospects for real progress in the negotiations this year. Consequently, I think enactment of a 200-mile fishing limit in the 94th Congress is a necessity.
Third. A unilateral U.S. 200-mile limit could improve prospects for an early Law of the Sea agreement. Fears have been expressed that a unilateral 200-mile limit might provoke retaliation from other countries. We created a stir in the Conference by indicating our vigorous support for a 200-mile limit. We were told that the United States ought not to act that irresponsibly. So we suggested a course of action that might serve as a substitute, if we were being asked to exercise restraint with respect to this kind of legislation, then it seemed to us not unreasonable to ask restraint of those who created the problem off our coasts the Soviet Union and Japan. I suggested that to them, but got very little positive response.
If the United States does not take effective short-run action to protect the fish stocks off our coasts, who is going to do so?
There is no evidence to suggest such restraint on their part. Indeed, at most, other countries will protect their own offshore stocks, if they have anything left to protect.
I would like to emphasize that nothing in the 200-mile fish limit legislation is inconsistent with our negotiating position at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. Some foreign delegates to the Conference expressed reservations about America's enacting interim 200-mile fish limit legislation. But my guess is that their first reaction, after denouncing the legislation, would be to negotiate at the Conference with a new sense of urgency.
It is important to remember that this legislation will not prohibit other nations from fishing in the 200-mile zone. In fact, it would preserve the rights of nations which have traditionally fished off our shores. But it would reserve to the United States the right to manage our offshore fish stocks to assure their best, and most prudent, use.
And in a hungry world, there is a global interest in assuring a continuing supply of protein from the sea.
Mr. President, I hope the Senate will give full and favorable consideration to the legislation we introduce today. It is past time to act.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, there are many and varied reasons for my cosponsoring the 200-mile fishing limit today.
As a Senator from Maine, I am acutely aware of the effect foreign fishing has on not only the men and women who battle the sea to earn their living, but on the sea harvest itself. I have addressed this body on this subject many times in the past 2 years, inspired by the urgent need to do something for an industry which has the capacity to feed people, yet which is sometimes tragically ignored by its Government.
Foreign fishing fleets, heavily subsidized by their governments, sweep into the waters off Maine and all too frequently destroy nets and other fishing gear belonging to Maine fishermen. There is little if any restitution by the Government for this damage. There is little if any low-interest money for American fishermen to replace the gear destroyed by foreign fishermen.
I recently chaired hearings in Maine on the fishing industry, and heard first hand from those who work on the water the problems of dealing with this sort of situation.
A healthy fisheries industry is a vital asset for any State. In Maine, earning a living from the water is a way of life; a rugged, vigorous, challenging way to make a living. There are enough dangers inherent in such a life; the Government need not add to them by ignoring this opportunity to help an industry which has the capacity to harvest a renewable crop and feed people.
Depletion of a food industry such as fisheries would be a terrible mistake.
Both coasts of this Nation participate – for profit – in harvesting the yield of the sea. In terms of money, this Nation would suffer tremendous loss of income were we to lose this industry. In terms of food, it is even more critical. The lack of protein to meet the world's need could in large part be met by intelligently harvesting the food in our seas.
We can take steps here in this Chamber to encourage that harvest. Adoption of a 200-mile limit will first of all establish our right to harvest those fish which breed in our territorial waters now – within the present limit. Second, it will offer some protection to every American fisherman against encroachment by foreign fishing fleets, a right which I consider basic.
Food is an important commodity. We cannot afford to ignore, or to treat badly, an industry which has so much to offer not only America, but all nations which need vital protein for the nutrition of its people. The fishing industry already makes a significant contribution to the world's food supply. We can help make that contribution larger, and more significant, by supporting the 200-mile limit, and by encouraging stronger Government participation in the as yet unrealized potential of harvesting the food that exists in the sea.