EMERGENCY MARINE FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT OF 1974

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410002-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 2, 2001
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: November 27, 1974
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIAARBP75B003a0 PiO. R012110002-4
tmendar
93D CONGRESS
d S e SiOn
SENATE
REPORT
No. 93-1300
Oil SR
EMERGENCY MARINE FISHERIES PROCT' ico
ACT OF 19174
NOVEMBER 27, Int.?Ordered to be printed
Reported under authority of the order of the Senate on November 22, 1974
Mr. MCINTYRE, from the Committee on Armed Services,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1988]
The Committee on Armed Services, to which was referred the bill
(S. 1988) to extend, pending international agreement, the jurisdiction
of the United States over certain ocean areas and fish in order to man-
age and conserve such fish, protect the domestic fishing industry, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE
By its terms the purpose of S. 1988 is "to take emergency action to
protect and conserve threatened stocks of fish * * *, until a general
international agreement on fishery jurisdiction comes into force * *
The bill would extend U.S. fishery management authority over a 200
nautical mile contiguous fishery zone and over anadromous stocks of
U.S. origin wherever they may range on the high seas. In principle,
the bill would commit the Federal Government to fishery management
and conservation. U.S. fishermen would be granted preferential fish-
ing rights within the 200 nautical mile fisheries zone and as to certain
anadromous stocks. The stated policy of S. 1988 is "* * * to authorize
no impediment to or interference with the legal status of the high seas,
except with respect to fishing to the extent necessary to implement this
Act."
38-010
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410002-4
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410002-4
2
BA CKGR( JUND
S. 1988 was introduced on June 13, 1973, by Senator Warren G.
Magnuson and was co-sponsored by Senators Cotton, Hollings, Jack-
son, Pastore and Stevens. It was referred to the Senate Commerce
Committee. After careful study and lengthy hearings the Commerce
Committee reported S. 1988 favorably.
The findings of the Commerce Committee are reflected in the bill.
S. 1988 declares that "valuable coastal and anadromous species of :fish
off the shores of the United States are in danger of being serionsly
depleted by excessive fishing effort." Massive foreign fishing efforts are
in large measure responsible for these depletions. Internationali agree-
ments in the past have failed to ensure fishery conservation, and there
is a danger that further depletion of fishery resources will occur be-
fore any future international agreement can be implemented.
In reporting the bill favorably the Commerce Committee empha-
sized that S. 1988 would be an emergency measure, was not intended
to impact on any ocean interests beyond fishing, and would. expire
upon U.S. ratification of an international treaty with respect to fisher-
ies jurisdiction. The Commerce Committee concluded that passage of
S. 1988 at this time would be in the best interests of the United States
and the best interests of preserving threatened stocks of fish.
At the request of Senator J. William Fulbright, S. 1988 was re-
ferred consecutively to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, After
extended hearings and considerations, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee defeated a motion to report S. 1988 favorably by a vote of
eight in fa-v or and nine in opposition. Accordingly, on September 23,
1974, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported S. 1988 un-
favorably, recommending that it not pass.
In its report the Senate Foreign Relations Committee declared that
the passage. of S. 1988 would encourage foreign nations to initiate a
variety of broad jurisdictional claims, would disrupt existing rela-
tions with several i st nt water fishing nations who fish off U.S. coasts
and would be inconsistent with United States' obligations under inter-
national law. It was the Foreign Relations Committee's belief that the
United States coastal fishing problem should be more appropriately
resolved through the Law of the Sea Conference.
COMMITTEE ACTION
On September 23, 1974, S. 1988, by unanimous consent, was referred
to the Senate Armed Services Committee with instructions to report
back not later than November 15, 1974. On October 8, 9, and 11, 1974,
the Armed Services Committee held open hearings on S. 1988. At that
time. the following witnesses were heard: General George S. Brown,
Chairman, joint Chiefs of Staff; John Norton .Moore, Chairman, Na-
tional Secuity Council Interagency Task Force on the Law of the
Sea; Senator Warren G. Magnuson; Senator Ted Stevens; Senator
Edmund S. Muskie ; and numerous representatives from the fishing in-
dustry and conservation. groups.
On October 16, 1974, the _Armed Services Committee's reporting
date was extended by unanimous consent from November 15, 1974., to
November 2, 1974. By a subsequent unanimous consent agreement,
the date was further extended to November 27, 1974.
8.R. 1300
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410002-4
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 3CIA-RDP751300380R000500410002-4
The Armed Services Committee met in Executive Session on Novem-
ber 25, 1974 and voted by an 8-6 margin to report S. 1988 favorably.
Senators Jackson, Cannon, McIntyre, Byrd of Virginia, Hughes,
Dominick, Scott of Virginia and 'raft voted in favor of the Hughes,
Dominick,
Senators Stennis, Ervin, Nunn, Thurmond, Tower and Goldwater
voted against the bill.
' DISCUSSION
'U.S. coastal fishery problems
_
The committee began its deliberations of S. 1988 with the unanimous
recognition of the critical depletion of U.S. coastal fishery stocks and
the accelerating plight of U.S. coastal fishermen. Several stocks in-
:eluding haddock, herring, mackerel, halibut, and yellow tail flounder,
are dangerously close to depletion beyond the point of self-renewal.
Fish are a vital source of protein which is all the more valuable pre-
cisely because it has been renewable. With world demand for food
steadily increasing, it is essential that the United States properly
manage and conserve its fishery resources.
While over-fishing and the consequent depletion of U.S. fishery
stocks has continued at a growing rate for more than a decade, the
catch of the U.S. fishing fleets has remained relatively constant. At
the same time, the catch of U.S. coastal fishing fleets has dramatically
declined as a percentage of the total catch off U.S. coasts.
Huge foreign fishing fleets which use "factory" fishing methods
are often subsidized by foreign governments, have forced U.S. fisher-
men to greatly increase their efforts merely to retain a steadily dimin-
ishing fishing of the total fishin catch off U.S. coasts. It should be
pointed out that this situation has lead to an alarming increase in the
number of confrontations between foreign and U.S. coastal fishermen.
New fishing agreements reached under the mandate of S. 1988 will
hopefully eliminate these confrontations between fishermen.
The committee recognized that the optimal solution to maintaining
healthy fishery stocks and a viable coastal fishing industry would be
for the Law of the Sea Conference to reach an agreement comparable
in substance to S. 1988. Based on the evidence presented to the Com-
mittee, it is likely that the Law of the Sea Conference will eventually
endorse the substance of S. 1988. But so far, progress at the Law of
the Sea Conference has been painfully slow on the over 80 ocean
issues under discussion by 148 participating nations. As must be realis-
tically expected with any conference of such magnitude and com-
plexity, international agreement may not occur for several years. In
the meantime, the harirr to U.S. coastal fishery stocks, as well as to the
U.S. coastal fishing industry continues and threatens to become
irreversible.
By its terms S. 1988 seeks to provide much needed emergency relief
to the United States fishery problems in the anticipation of an even-
tual international agreement on the status of coastal fishery jurisdic-
tion. S. 1988 is an interim measure which would quickly take effect and
automatically expire at such time as the United States ratified an in-
ternational treaty with respect to fishery jurisdiction. In short, S. 1988
represents a prompt and effective solution to U.S. coastal fishing
problems.
S.11. 1300
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410002-4
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : 1A-RDP751300380R000500410002-4
National Security and other ?awn considerations
In evaluating S. 1988, the Committee considered the effect passage
of S. 1088 might have on. other U.S. ocean interests, particularly na-
tional security interests.
The Committee noted that the United States does have significant
national security interests at stake in the Law of the Sea Conference.
In testimony before the Committee, Defense Department .officials
Pointed out that two of the primary U.S.' objectives of the Law of the
Sea Conference were to obtain international agreement on a narrow de-
finition of territorial seas and on the principle of unimpeded transit
of straits. While appreciating the significance of these two U.S.. ob-
jectives to the mobility and survivability of U.S. military forces,
the Committee does not believe that these objectives would be sig-
nificantly affected by the passage of S. 1988. S. 1988 applies exclu-
sively to fishery jurisdiction. It does not extend U.S. territorial sov-
ereignty. It does not alter the legal ,status of any vessel on the high
seas.
Moreover, S. 1988 is wholly consistent with the present U.S. nego-
tiating position at the Law of the Sea Conference. Establishment of
a 200 nautical mile coastal fisheries zone, perhaps more than any other
issue, enjoys the endorsement of a majority of nations at the Law of
the Sea Conference. Because of its limited application to. fishery
jurisdiction only, passage of S. 1988 should not undermine progress
at the Law of the Sea Conference on other ocean interests. Rather,
passage of S. 1988 may simply expedite international agreement on
the prineiple of a 200 nautical mile coastal fisheries zone.
Another contention, put forward by both Defense and State Depart-
ment witnesses, was that foreign nations would retaliate against pas-
sage of S. 1988 by unilaterally imposing a variety of broader terri-
torial or transit restrictions. The Committee felt, however, that such
contentions were exaggerated and without sufficient support. Efforts
by foreign nations to take retaliatory measures against the United
States beyond the area of fisheries would be both unwarranted and
unjustifialile.
Defense officials also stressed to the Committee the potential of
armed confrontations arising out of enforcement of S. 1988. Decisive
action through passage of S. 1988 should not, however, measurably
increase the risk of armed confrontations. S. 1988 does not abrogate
any existing U.S. treaties; on the contrary, it specifically directs the
Secretary of State to amend existing treaties and negotiate new agree-
ments with foreign nations consistent with S. 1988. Passage of S. P,188
would give the Secretary of State sufficient leverage in such nego-
tiations to work out satisfactory fishing arrangements with foreign
nations without resort to armed confrontations. Since S. is :las
largely come to represent the bargaining position of most nations at
the Law of the Sea Conference, these same nations should not be
expected to offer uncompromising resistence to enforcement of S. 1088.
Finally, the Committee was not persuaded to oppose S. 1988 for
reasons pertaining to international law. To be sure the United States
has in the past maintained by statute a 12 nautical mile coastal fish-
eries zone and has consistently refused to recognize foreign fisheries
sit. 13)0
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410002-4
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410002-4
5
claims beyond 12 nautical miles. Nevertheless, international law is
dynamic and ambiguous. Dramatic changes have recently occurred
in the levels of fishery stocks, the technology of fishing, and the. extent
of distant fishing efforts. Adjustments in international law must be
made to accomodate these changed conditions. A growing number of
nations?approximately 36 at present?have in fact extended fishery
jurisdictions beyond 12 nautical miles.
As the negotiations at the Law of the Sea Conference have demon-
strated, an undeniable momentum exists for international acceptance
of a 200 nautical mile fishing jurisdiction. S. 1988 would allow the
United States to lead that momentum rather than be swept up by it.
CONCLUSION
S. 1988 would provide an effective emergency and interim remedy
to the problems of conserving U.S. coastal fishery stocks and preserv-
ing a viable U.S. coastal fishing industry. In the Committee's judg-
ment the effect of passage of S. 1988 on other U.S. ocean interests?
and specifically on U.S. national security interests?would not be
sufficient to offset the bill's overall desirability. Thus, the Committee
reports the bill favorably and recommends that it do pass.
S.R. 1300
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410002-4
Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410002-4
MINORITY VIEWS
Because of the important impact S. 1988 can be expected to have on
U.S. national interests and in light of the substantial disagreement
within the Armed Services Committee regarding the desirability of
S. 1988, I believe it is necessary to submit additional views in opposi-
tion to passage of S. 1988.
S. 1988 is designed to relieve the problems of the depletion of U.S.
coastal fishery stocks and the growing economic pressures on the U.S.
coastal fishing industry. These are serious _problems which deserve the
prompt and strenuous efforts of both the Congress and the Executive.
Conserving fishery resources and maintaining a viable coastal fishing
industry are of crucial national interest.
In considering the desirability of enacting S. 1988 into law, however,
the committee must evaluate the bill in the broadest context of overall
U.S. interests. Because S. 1988 can be expected to affect adversely U.S.
national security interests as well as other U.S. interests, I believe its
passage at this time would be unwise. It would be inconsistent with
U.S. obligations under international law and does not, in my view, rep-
resent the most effective means of resolving U.S. fisheries problems.
S. 1988 WILL THREATEN U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS
Enforcement problems
S. 1988 would extend U.S. fishery jurisdiction by approximately
two million square miles. Enforcement of S. 1988 throughout such a
large area will be difficult and costly. If the fishing vesels of any major
fishing nation defied U.S. fishing authority in the 200 nautical mile
coastal zone, the Coast Guard alone would be unable to enforce the
provisions of S. 1988. The resources of the Defense Department would
have to be utilized for enforcement purposes.
Open defiance of U.S. authority would not be unlikely given the
recent defiance by Great Britain of Iceland's 50 nautical mile fishery
zone during the so-called "Cod War" and since U.S. action in declaring
a 200 nautical mile fishery zone could be reasonably viewed by foreign
nations as a violation of international law. The fining and imprison-
ment of foreign fishermen under S. 1988 would surely be considered
by major fishing nations to be a serious provocation. Hence, the risk
of armed confrontation between U.S. military forces and fishing boats
or escort gunboats of such nations as the U.S.S.R. and Japan could be
substantial.
R,etaliatory measures
The mobility of U.S. strategic and general purpose forces as well as
the survivability of U.S. strategic forces could be threatened by vari-
ous unilateral actions of other nations in response to S. 1988. Adminis-
tration officials expressed the fear that in response to the passage of
(7)
Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410002-4
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410002-4
8
S. 1988 other nations would act in varying degrees to prevent naval
surface passage, especially through straits, submerged submarine and
other strategic operations, and overflights.
If the United States in its acknowledged leadership position suc-
cumbs to pressures for unilateral action to further its own interests,
other nations can naturally be expected to take unilateral actions in
their pecutar interests. The likelihood of foreign retaliation to a uni-
lateral action by the United States W1S demonstrated by the prolifera-
tion of extended territorial sea claims that occurred after the United
States declared. a 12 mile fishing limit in 1966.
All the major ocean issues which are presently before the Law of
the Sea Conferen.ce?from fishing rights to mineral rights to territorial
jurisdiction---are closely interrel a teil . Commonsense, and precedent
suggest that other nations would respond to S. 1988 by various -uni-
lateral actions.
nderminktg a _fa,,orable Law of the Sea Conference
Through the Law of the Sea Conference, the United States is
trying to establish international agreement on the crucial national
security concepts of unimpeded transits of. straits and a narrow defini-
tion of territorial sea with the right to innocent passage. Neither the
breadth of territorial seas nor the right to unimpeded transit through
straits have ever been guaranteed in a substantial international
agreement,.
"Narrowly defined territorial seas i.e. 12 hulks or less, and the
right to unimpeded transit of straits seas,
includes submerged transit
can enhance the range and mobility of the U.S. strategic submarine
deterrent. More importantly, the establishment of wide territorial seas
and restricted transit; through straits would result in serious con-
straints on fleet operations in such critical areas as the Mediterranean
Sea. In the absence of international agreement, these constraints could
be unevenly applied by both enemy and ally to impede U.S. naval
forces responding to local or regional crises. Smilarly, as demonstrated
in the recent Middle East War, oveuffight rights which are inherent
in the concept of unimpeded transit of straits can be essential in the
United States' ability to effectively respond to crises throughout the
world.
To strike the best overall agreement at the Law of the Sea Con-
ference, the United States needs the flexibility and leverage that
comes with having the broadest; range of issues on which to negotiate.
By being able to bargain with fundamental fishing and economic
rights of the Law of the Sea Conference, the United States has the
best opportunity to achieve an international agreement that will guar-
antee, comprehensively and systematically, U.S. ocean interests affect-
ing national security.
S. 1988 would be ineonsi8tent with international law
A unilateral declaration of a 200 nautical mile fishery zone would
violate the freedom of fishing as established in the 1958 Geneva Agree-
ment to which the United States was a signator. The International
Court has recently held that Iceland's declaration of a 50 nautical
mile fishery zone was not enforceable under international law. The
United States has consistently refused to recognize any territorial or
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP751300380RIT06560410002-4
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410002-4
fishing claims beyond the 12 mile limit. To be sure, fishing conditions
have changed since 1958 and there is a growing consensus among na-
tions for a 200 mile coastal fishery jurisdiction. But prevailing inter-
national law on freedom of fishing, however fragile, cannot be over-
turned by the unilateral action of a single nation. Legal justification of
a 200 mile fishery zone would require a multilateral expression of na-
tions that could be best achieved in the Law of the Sea Conference.
5. 1988 would satisfy some U.S. fishing interest at the risk of all other
U.S. ocean interests
In addition to national security, the United States has a variety of
other national interests which could be both threatened by retaliatory
actions stemming from S. 1988 and deprived of satisfactory resolution
in the Law of the Sea Conference. U.S. interests in the economic re-
sources of the ocean bottom, the commercial shipping of all types of
cargoes including oil, and the full range of fishery interests, both
coastal and distant, are all at stake in the Law of the Sea Conference.
Through the bargaining of a multilateral negotiation all of these in-
terests can be most appropriately balanced and preserved. To the ex-
tent that countries act unilaterally on one of these issues, the chances
of an overall agreement will become less.
There are other more efficient solutions to the U.S. fisheries problem
than S. 1988
The bulk of the foreign fishing operations in U.S. coastal waters is
done by a few major fishing nations. Although other nations fish off
-U.S. coasts, foreign over-fishing can be traced largely to such nations
as Japan and the Soviet Union. As a result, the U.S. coastal fishing
problems could be best resolved?prior to and without jeopardizing
the Law of the Sea Conference?through bilateral agreements with
these few nations.
At least two measures are presently under way to ease U.S. fishing
problems aside from S. 1988. A new round of bilateral negotiations
on fishing issues will begin shortly with Japan, the Soviet Union and
other major fishing nations. A new and more stringent enforcement
program for the protection of continental shelf living resources will go
into effect December 9, 1974. Both of these measures, if pursued vigor-
ously, could significantly improve the U.S. fishery situation.
CONCLUSION
The United States is confronted with serious coastal fishing prob-
lems. By passage of S. 1988 the United States will be resorting to co-
ercion rather than cooperation to resolve its fishery problems. The
United States will be satisfying its fishing interests at the risk of its
national security interests and other ocean interests. Furthermore,
S. 1988 would be inconsistent with existing international law. Finally,
there are solutions to the U.S. fishing problems at this time other than
passage of S. 1988. For all of these reasons I oppose enactment of
S. 1988.
0
JOHN C. STENNIS.
S.R. 1300
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410002-4