January 28, 1976
Page 1301
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to compliment the Senator for his move in taking the findings from the pending amendment and adding them to the bill.
The interesting thing about those findings is that they support intent, the intent of our bill.
I wish to compliment our good friend from Rhode Island for his fine words of support. He has demonstrated again what a great loss it will be when he is no longer on this floor.
He has, I think better than any of the rest of us, described the need for this legislation.
Make no mistakes about it, the genesis of the amendment that Senator MUSKIE is trying to correct was, in fact, the State Department and the Defense Department, we know that. They made the same statement before during consideration of the 12-mile zone that they are making now about the 200-mile zone. They are afraid of confrontation. What my colleague from Alaska fails to see is that the confrontation would come sooner under the article 7 procedure than under our bill.
Our bill specifically says to negotiate if there is any conflict. The problem with the article 7 procedure is that only 34 nations in the world have agreed to that convention, none of whom have major fishing fleets off our coasts. We would be out trying to enforce a convention that the parties negotiating it in the whole period of negotiation refused to accept.
It would be the same as foreign nations trying to enforce compulsory supplements protocol against us. We know that would not work, with due respect to some of the legal eagles that the State Department has corralled. By the way; they corral them when they agree with them. I do not find they let anybody in that disagrees with them.
But when it comes down to it, with all due respect, I would be happy if one of them had ever tried a case, or ran for dog catcher, or sheriff, even, any activity that had given them some common sense in dealing with American problems first.
I wholeheartedly agree with what Senator PACKWOOD said. The problem really is that we continue to be sold down the river.
If those were American boats out there, were American business boats, fishing business boats, analogous to the agribusiness, that large U.S. corporations out there vacuuming and cleaning the bottoms of the sea off our shores, I ask the Senator from California, what would he do about them?
The Senator knows what he would do. Just what we are trying to do here.
We are trying to say that regulations apply to both Americans and foreigners alike, but we get preference.
The difference, really, is in our approach in the Magnuson Act, and I want everyone to recognize what this is. This is a signal to the world that we are going to impose conservation concepts on the oceans off our shores. It is right that it be called the Magnuson Act.
If we had American business out there doing this, the Congress would rise up in righteous indignation; and Congress is rising up in righteous indignation about this. Who has been protecting the foreigners? It is the State Department that has protected them all along.
They go to these international meetings where quotas for the foreign fishermen are discussed first.
Thank God that is changing. I have indications that the attitude of the State Department may be changing. In the past, regarding pollock for example, if the Russians and the Japanese wanted to take 2 million metric tons, the State Department would negotiate them down to 1.3 million metric tons when the sustained yield was only 1 million tons or less. We have negotiated away our position to the point that nothing is left for American bottom fishermen.
I would say in all due respect to those people who are offering this basic amendment, that Senator MUSKIE is trying to correct, that they know what they are doing. They have put us on a treadmill, like white mice in a little cage.
Under the Cranston amendment not only would we have a confrontation that would be far worse, but we would be right where we are today, with no Law of the Sea Conference.
It took 8 years to ratify the basic convention that they are trying to impose on us now, and in that 8 years, only 34 nations agreed to it. If we can get the Law of the Sea Conference to complete its work next year, it would be at least 8 years before we have enough nations of the world ratify that treaty to make it become law and the chances are that the Japanese and Russians would not sign a blasted thing anyway. So we would be worse off than now.
I know in the interest of comity, this is sort of an uncontrolled 15 minutes that we maneuvered last night — and that is the word for it.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, if I may have 10 seconds, it has not been brought out in this long debate here that one other country, the People's Republic of China, is building and probably will have one of the greatest fishing fleets in the whole Pacific in this period of time.
Of course, they are not going to sign any agreement, any agreement on fishing
Mr. STEVENS. I wholeheartedly agree.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, just another 30 seconds, and then I will yield to the Senator from California. This time is not controlled. I do not want to take advantage of my position. I am sure the Senator would like to have time to reply.
I add this thought. I get the implication from the Senator from Alaska — and I doubt very much he believes it — that unilateral action by the United States in its own interests is never justified
We defend ourselves through our Military Establishment unilaterally at the same time that we seek to negotiate international agreements to bring the arms race under control. Unilateral action at the same time we use the world forum to work toward peace.
In this instance, we are doing the same thing. That is the purpose of this amendment, to assert our unilateral interests, to prod an international forum into recognition of those interests.
As a matter of fact, the formula contained in this bill is the very formula that seems highly likely to be included in an international agreement if it is negotiated.
So with the proposal that I have offered the Senate, which will take two actions: First, approval of my amendment; second, the approval of the Thurmond amendment in this proposal, what we will do is assert our interests as a country in these resources off our shores and, at the same time, provide another 6 months, until July 1, 1977, to pursue international negotiations of the Law of the Sea Conference.
The Cranston amendment would simply be for that objective.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, let me first say that I am glad the Senator from Alaska has acknowledged that the State Department and DOD are behind this amendment. I stated yesterday that, in effect, the administration was for it. Whether what the Senior Senator from Alaska has said means "the administration is for it," I do not know. But rather plainly the State Department and the Department of Defense, for reasons related to diplomacy and national defense, are supporting informally, if not formally, the Griffin-Cranston amendment.
All arguments have basically been covered in regard to this measure in the rather long debate that we have had.
I would like to excuse myself from the gutter, to use the terminology of the senior Senator from Maine, because the amendment that we have offered is not designed to gut the Magnuson bill.
The amendment is designed to achieve the objectives of the Magnuson bill by resorting to approaches covered by international law. Our objective is to avoid a unilateral leap 200 miles out without first negotiating. If necessary, we would have the right, after negotiations, to proceed to establish conservation measures exactly like those called for in the Magnuson bill.
Fifteen minutes were allotted for this amendment. About 10 minutes were used by the proponents of the substitute. We do not need all of our time. All the arguments have been made. I, therefore, move to table the Muskie amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. BUMPERS). Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Maine. On this question the yeas and nays have been orderedand the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will suspend. May we have order in the Chamber? The clerk will suspend until we have order. We are on a very tight schedule this morning. Will the Senate please be in order?
The assistant legislative clerk resumed the call of the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has announced before that we have a very tight schedule this morning. The sooner we can complete this rollcall the sooner we can get on to other business. Will the Senators please take their seats?
The assistant legislative clerk resumed and concluded the call of the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 31, nays 64, as follows:
[Roll call tally omitted]
So the motion to lay on the table was rejected.