January 27, 1976
Page 1186
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think since the letter we have placed on the desks has been partially read, we ought to just read it into the RECORD. It is not very long, and it sums up our position on this.
Let me point out again the letter states:
The United States has ratified but has never implemented this 1958 treaty. To our knowledge, none of its mechanisms have ever been utilized by any nation since it came into force in 1966. On May 3, 1974, Kenneth Rush, the Acting Secretary of the Department of State, stated before the Senate Commerce Committee that the Department had no plans whatever to utilize this treaty for protecting threatened stocks of fish. In fact, because the terms of the 1958 Convention require that management measures be implemented on a non-discriminatory basis, the United States would lose whatever preferential rights we have achieved under existing treaties and agreements.
The amendment also speaks in terms of adopting emergency conservation measures in areas of the ocean adjacent to the territorial sea in the manner provided for in the treaty. However, its drafters failed to note that we already have a 12-mile jurisdiction limit for fisheries. This amendment would be a quitclaim of existing management rights in this 12-mile limit. Such a result is absolutely unacceptable.
I again ask unanimous consent that the full text of our letter be printed in the RECORD. It is signed by our chairman, Senator MAGNUSON, by Senator KENNEDY, Senator MUSKIE, Senator PACKWOOD, Senator PASTORE, and myself.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C.,
January 27, 1976.
DEAR COLLEAGUE: We urge you to vote against the Cranston-Gravel amendment to the Magnuson Fisheries Management. and Conservation Act (S. 961). This amendment is totally unacceptable to the sponsors of this legislation because: (1) a similar measure was considered and soundly rejected in both the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee during consideration of 200-mile limit legislation; (2) the Department of State has testified in opposition to this same approach to fisheries conservation; (3) the amendment would create an inordinately time-consuming process which could conceivably take as long to implement as it would to achieve a new Law of the Sea agreement; (4) as drafted, the amendment would subject domestic and foreign fishing within the existing U.S. 12-mile limit to an international treaty intended to cover fishing on the high seas; and (5) the basis of the amendment is a 1958 Convention which has failed to achieve consensus support in the world and which several major fishing nations, such as the U.S.S.R. and Japan, have refused to sign.
The "Article 7" approach is based upon the 1958 Geneva Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. Use of this unproven method of protecting our fisheries resources was suggested well over three years ago in hearings on the earlier version of S. 961 before the Senate Committee on Commerce. This approach gained negligible support.
During House debate over the counterpart bill (H.R. 200), the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee also soundly rejected a bill based on Article 7 of the Convention. In short, the substance of this amendment has already been considered in depth by both House and Senate committees of interest and has been rejected as being completely unworkable.
The United States has ratified but has never implemented this 1958 treaty. To our knowledge, none of its mechanisms have ever been utilized by any nation since it came into force in 1966.
On May 3, 1974, Kenneth Rush, then Acting Secretary of the Department of State, stated before the Senate Commerce Committee that the Department had no plans whatever to utilize this treaty for protecting threatened stocks of fish. In fact, because the terms of the 1958 Convention require that management measures be implemented on a non-discriminatory basis, the United States would lose whatever preferential rights we have achieved under existing treaties and agreements.
The amendment also speaks in terms of adopting emergency conservation measures in areas of the ocean adjacent to the territorial sea in the manner provided for in the treaty. However, its drafters failed to note that we already have a 12-mile jurisdiction limit for fisheries. This amendment would be a quitclaim of existing management rights in this 12-mile limit. Such a result is absolutely unacceptable.
The process of adopting emergency management regulations under the 1958 Convention is totally out of touch with biological needs. It would take well over a year before a depleted stock could be protected by such emergency measures. The ultimate affect of this amendment would be to delay application of any "emergency" measures for years. This is why many nations refuse to utilize 1958 Geneva Convention for protecting fisheries resources.
Finally, this treaty has been ratified by few major fishing nations. Neither the Soviet Union nor Japan, the two nations with the largest fishing fleets operating off U.S. shores have signed the Convention. To rely upon this Convention would mean a serious setback to fisheries conservation. In summary, the amendment would be totally ineffective.
For reasons cited above, we believe that the Cranston-Gravel amendment to S. 961 is ill- conceived, poorly drafted and would not achieve the results desired by its sponsors. We urge that the Senate vote against this measure.
Sincerely,
WARREN G. MAGNUSON, EDMUND S. MUSKIE, JOHN O. PASTORE,
EDWARD M. KENNEDY.BOB PACKWOOD, TED STEVENS,
U.S. Senators.