HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS ON S. 1988

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 81
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 2, 2001
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: September 5, 1974
• Content Type: REPORT

Appro GMERLTNE 1 llRRIft/MS 1GJ PfMTE tp-Vp 0003-3
OF 1974
HEARING
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
S. 1988
A BILL TO EXTEND ON AN INTERIM BASIS THE JURISDIC-
TION OF THE UNITED STATES OVER CERTAIN OCEAN
AREAS AND FISH IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE' DOMESTIC
FISHING INDUSTRY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
0
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-780 WASHINGTON : 1974
C,13/A8/"4liu_wE
Approved For Release 2003p9jQ7 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
t--~4 Hqs., 4182
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
J. W. FULBRIG'IHT, Arkansas, Chairman
JOHN SPARKMAN, Alabama
MIKE MANSFIELD. Montana
FRANK CHURCH, Idaho
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island
GALE W. McG"EE, Wyoming
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine
GEORGE S. McGOVERN, South Dakota
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota
GEORGE D. AIKEN, Vermont
CLIFFORD P. CASK;, New Jersey
JACOB K. JAVITS, New York
HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania
JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansns
CHARLES II. PERCY, Illinois,
ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan
PAT M. HOLT, Chief of Staff
ARTHUR M. KrHL, Chief Clerk
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
CONTENTS
Statements by:
Page
Gravel, lion. Mike, U.S. Senator from Alaska-----------------------
28
Magnuson, lion. Warren G., Senator from Washington--------------
25
Maw, Carlyle Ii., Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance---
32
Moore, John Norton, Chairman, The National Security Council Inter-
agency Task Force on the Law of the Sea and Deputy Special
Representative of the President for the Law of the Sea Conference,
accompanied by Hon. Howard W. Pollock, Deputy Administrator of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department
of Commerce; William Sullivan, Acting Coordinator of Ocean Af-
fairs, Department of State--------------------------------------
42
Stevens, lion. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska----------------------
11
Stevenson, Ambassador John R., Special Representative of the Presi-.
dent for the Law of the Sea Conference--------------------------
33
Insertions for the record :
Text of S. 1988, 93d Congress, 2d session---------------------------
1
Prepared statement of Senator Ted Stevens------------------------
13
Letter to Senator Warren G. Magnuson from John Norton Moore,
dated September 5, 1974----------------------------------------
23
State Department Communication to Foreign Countries Regarding
Policy Outlined in Mr. Moore's letter to Senator Magnuson-----------
23
Department of State Press Release, September 12, 1974-New Enforce-
ment Measures for Protection of Fishery Resources of the U.S.
Continental Shelf--------------------------------------------------
24
Prepared statement of Senator Warren G. Magnuson--------------------
26
Prepared statement of Senator Mike Gravel----------------------------
30
Prepared statement of Ambassador John R. Stevenson------------------
37
Status of major fisheries stocks of U.S. coasts and ongoing interna-
tional management activities----------------------------------------
44
Protection of living resources of the oceans beyond the contiguous
fisheries zone------------------------------------------------------
52
Prepared statement of John Norton Moore-----------------------------
53
Letter to Senator J. W. Fulbright from Carlyle E. Maw, Department of
State, dated September 17, 1.974-------------------------------------
60
Prepared statement of Hon. Donald M. Fraser, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Minnesota--------------------------------
72
Response of Department of State to an additional question submitted
by Senator Pell----------------------------------------------------
72
Responses of Department of State to questions submitted for the rec-
ord by Senator Pell-------------------------------------------------
74
Appendix :
Letter to Senator J. W. Fulbright from William P. Clements, Jr.,
Deputy Secretary of Defense, dated September 14,1974-----------
77
Letter to Senator J. W. Fulbright from lion. Henry A. Kissinger,
Secretary of State, dated September 22,1974---------------------
79
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
EMERGENCY MARINE FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
OF 1974
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1974
UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., room 4221,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Sparkman presiding.
Present : Senators Sparkman, Pell, Muskie, Aiken,.Case, and Javits.
Senator SPARKMAN. Let the committee come to order, please.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is meeting this morning to
receive testimony on S. 1988, the proposed Emergency Marine Fish-
eries Protection Act.
[Text of S. 1988 follows:]
[S. 1988, 93d Cong., 2d scss.]
AUGUST 8, 1974
Reported By Mr. MAGNUSON, with amendments
[ Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations for not to exceed
twenty-one days
A BILL To extend on an interim basis the jurisdiction of the United States over certain
ocean areas and fish in order to protect the domestic fishing Industry, and for other
purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, [That this Act may be cited as the "Interim
Fisheries Zone Extension and Management Act of 1973".
[FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
[Sac. 2. (a) The Congress finds-
[(1) that valuable coastal and anadromous species of fish and marine
life off the shores of the United States are in danger of being seriously
depleted, and in some cases, of becoming extinct ;
?[(2) that stock of coastal and anadromous species within the nine-mile
contiguous zone and three-mile territorial sea of the United States are
being seriously depleted by foreign fishing efforts beyond the existing twelve-
mile fisheries zone near the coastline of the United States;
;E(3) that international negotiations have so far proved incapable of
obtaining timely agreement on the protection and conservation of threatened
species of fish and marine life ;
[(4) that there is further danger of irreversible depletion before efforts
to achieve an international agreement on jurisdiction over coastal and
anadromous fisheries result in an operative agreement ; and
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
[(5) that it is therefore necessary for the United States to take interim
action to protect and conserve overfished stocks and to protect our domestic
fishing industry.
[(b) It is the purpose of this Act, as an interim measure, to extend the con-
tiguous fisheries zone of the United States and certain authority over anadro-
mous fish of the United States in order to provide proper conservation manage-
ment for such zone and fish and to protect the domestic fishing industry until
general agreement is reached in international negotiations of law of the sc
with respect to the size of such zones and authority over such fish, and until a.n
effective international regulatory regime comes into full force and effect.
(sxTENSION OF CONTIGUOUS FISHERIES ZONE
[SEC. 3. Section 2 of the Act entitled "An Act to establish a contiguous fishery
zone beyond the territorial sea of the United. States," approved October 14, 1966
(80 Stat. 998), is amended by striking "nine nautical miles from the nearest
point in the inner boundary." and inserting in lieu thereof "one hundred and
ninety-seven miles from the nearest point in the inner boundary."
[:I,XTENSION OF JURISDICTION OVER ANADROMOUS FISH
[SEC,. 4. (a) The United States hereby extends its jurisdiction to its anadro-
mous fish wherever they may range in the oceans to the same extent as the united
States exercises jurisdiction over fish in its territorial waters and contiguous
fisheries zone except that-
[(1) such extension of jurisdiction shall not extend to the territorial
waters or fishery zone of another country ; and
[(2) sixty days ,after written notice to the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives of intent to do so, the Secretary
of the Treasury may authorize a vessel. other than a vessel of the United
States to engage in fishing for such fish in areas to which the United States
has extended jurisdiction pursuant to this section upon determining.. after
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce,
that such fishing would not result in depletion of such fish beyond the level
necessary for proper conservation purposes.
[(b) As used in this Act the term "anadromous fish" means all living resources
originating in inland waters of the United States and migrating to and from
waters outside the territorial waters and contiguous fisheries zone of the United
States.
(PROI,LCTION OF PURPOSES OF ACT BY TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS
[SEc. 5. The Secretary of State Shall-
E(1) initiate negotiations as soon as possible with all foreign governments
which are engaged in, or which have persons or companies engaged in com-
mercial fishing operations for fish protected by this Act, for the purpose of
entering into treaties or agreements with such countries to carry out the
policies and provisions of this Act ;
[ (2) review and, if necessary, initiate the amendment of treaties, conven-
tions, and agreements to which the United States is a party in order to make
such treaties, conventions, and agreements consistent with the policies and
provisions of this Act ;
[(3) seek treaties or agreements with appropriate contiguous foreign
countries On the boundaries between the waters adjacent to the United
States and. waters adjacent to such foreign countries for the purpose of
rational utilization and conservation of the resources covered by this Act
and otherwise administering this Act ; and
[(4) seek treaties or agreements with appropriate foreign countries to
provide for the rational use and conservation of-
[(a;, coastal fish common both to waters over which the United States
has jurisdiction and to waters over which such foreign countries ha're
jurisdiction through measures which will make possible development
of the maximum yields from such fish ;
[(b) anadromous fish spending some part of their life cycles in waters
over which such foreign countries have jurisdiction through measures
which restrict high seas harvesting aand make available to the fishermen
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
3
of such foreign countries an equitable share of such anadromous fish
which are found in their territorial waters ;
[(c) fish originating in the high seas through strengthening existing
or, where needed, creating new international conservation organiza-
tions ; and
1:(d) coastal fish in waters over which other countries have jurisdic-
tion through measures which make possible the harvesting by United
States fishermen of an appropriate share of such fish not being harvested
by the coastal country, under users' fees, licenses, and regulations which
are nondiscriminatory and nonpunitive and take United States tradi-
tional fishing into account.
[RESEARCH
[SEC. 6. The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to promote the conserva-
tion of fish originating in the United States territorial sea and contiguous
fisheries zone and anadromous fish by carrying out such research, or providing
financial assistance to public or private agencies, institutions, or persons to
carry out research, as may be necessary.
[REGULATIONS
[SEC. 7. There are authorized to be promulgated such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, but the sums appropriated
for any fiscal year shall not exceed $1,000,000.
[EFFECTIVE DATE
[SEC. 9. The provisions of this Act shall become effective on the date of enact-
ment of this Act, except that the provisions of sections 3 and 4 shall become
effective after ninety days following such date of enactment.
[TERMINATION DATE
DEC. 10. This Act shall cease to be in effect on the date the Law of the Sea
Treaty or Treaties now being developed regarding fisheries jurisdiction and
conservation shall enter into force.
[SEC. 11. Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to abrogate any
treaty or convention to which the United States is a party on the date of the
enactmentof this Act.]
That this Act may be cited as the "Emergency Marine Fisheries Protection
Act of 1974".
DECLARATION Or POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds knd declares that-
(1) Valuable coastal and anadromous species of fish off the shores of
the United States are in danger of being seriously depleted by excessive
fishing effort.
(2) Stocks of coastal and anadromous species which inhabit waters of
the 3-mile territorial sea and the existing 9-mile contiguous fishery zone of
the United States are being depleted by foreign fishing efforts outside the
12-mile combined zone in which the United States presently possesses
fishery management responsibility and authority.
(3) International negotiations have so far failed to result in effective
international agreements on the conservation and management of threatened
stocks of fish.
(4) There is danger that further depletion of these fishery resources will
occur before an effective general international agreement on fishery juris-
diction can be negotiated, signed, ratified, and implemented, unless emer-
gency] action is taken pending such international agreement.
(b) PURPOSES. It is therefore declared to be the purpose of the Congress in
this Act-
(1) to take emergency action to protect and conserve threatened stocks of
fish by asserting fishery management responsibility and authority over fish
in an extended contiguous fishery zone and over certain species of fish beyond
such zone, until a general international agreement on fishery jurisdiction
comes into force or is provisionally applied;
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
4
(2) to extend, as an emergency measure, the fishery management respnnsi-
bility and authority of the United States to 200 nautical guiles;
(8) to extend, as an emergency mmeasure, fishery management respon8i.
bility aid authority of the United States over anadromous species of fish
which spawn in the fresh or estuarine waters of the United States; and
(4) to commit the Federal Government to act to prevent further depletion,
to restore depleted stocks, and to protect and conserve fish to the full extent
of such Cmergenctl responsibility and authority, and to provide for the identi-
fication,, development, and implementation within 2 years of the data of
enactment of this Act of the best practicable management system consistent
with the interests of the Nation, the several States, and of other nations.
(e) POLICY. It is further declared to the policy of the Congress in this Aet-
(1) to maintain the existing territorial or other ocean jurisdiction of the
United States without change, for all purposes other than the protection and
conservation of certain species of fish and fish in certain ocean areas pending
international agreement on fishery jurisdiction;
(2) to authorize no action, activity, or assertion of jurisdiction in contra-
vention of any existing treaty or other international agreement to which the
United States is party other than that necessary to further the purposes of
this Act; and
(3) 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.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. S. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-
(1) "aradromous species" means those species of fish which spawn in fresh
or estuarine waters of the United States but which migrate to ocean waters;
(2) "citizen of the United States" means ansg person who is a citizen, of
the United States by birth, by naturalization or other legal judgment, or,
with respect to a corporation, partnership, or other association, by orgaWza-
tion under and maintenance, after the date of enactment of this Act, in ac-
cordance with the laws of any State: Provided, That (A) the controlling
interest therein is owned or beneficially vested in individuals who are
citizens of the United States; and (B) the chairman, and not less than
two-thirds of the members, of the board of directors or other governing board
thereof are individuals who are citizens of the United States;
(3) "coastal species" means all species of fish which inhabit the waters
off the coasts of the United Stains, other than highly migratory and 2nadro-
rnou.s species;
(4) "contiguous fishery zone"' means a zone contiguous to the territorial
sea of the United States within which the United States exercises exclusive
fishery management and conservation authority;
(5) "controlling interest" means (A) 75 percent of the stock of any cor-
poration, or other entity, is vested in citizens of the United States free from
any trust or fiduciary obligation in favor of any person not a citizen of the
United States, (B) 75 percent of the voting power in such corporation, or
such other, entity, is vested in citizens of the United States, (C) no arran;9e-
m,ent or centract exists providing that more than 25 percent of the voting
power in such corporation, or such other entity, may be exercised in behalf
of any person who is not a citizen of the United States, and (D) by no means
whatsoever is control of any interest in such, corporation, or such, other
entity, conferred upon or permitted to be exercised by any person who is not
a citizen of the United States;
(6) "fish" includes mollusks, crustaceans, marine mammals (except the
polar bear, walrus, and sea otter), and all other forms of marine animal
and plant life (but not including birds), and, the living resources of the
Continental Shelf es defined in the Act of May 20, 1964 (78 Stat. 196 ' ;
(7) "fishing" means the catching, taking, harvesting, or attempted catch-
lug, taking, or harvesting of any species of fish for any purpose, and any
activity al sea in support of such actual or attempted catching, taking, or
harvesting ;
(8) "fishing vessel" means any vessel, boat, ship, contrivance, or other
craft which is used for, equipped, to be used for, or a type which is normally
used for, fishing;
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 :5CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
(9) "fishing-support vessel" means any vessel, boat, ship, contrivance, or
other craft which is used for, equipped to be used for, or of a type which is
normally used for, aiding or assisting one or more fishing vessels at sea in
the performance of any support activity, including, but not limited to,
supply, storage refrigeration, or processing;
(10) "highly migratory species" means those species of fish which spawn
and migrate during their life cycle in waters of the open ocean, including,
but not limited to, tuna;
(11) "optimum sustainable yield" refers to the largest economic return
consistent with the biological capabilities of the stock, as determined on the
basis of all relevant economic, biological, and environmental factors;
(12) "person" includes any government or entity thereof (and a citizen
of any foreign nation) ;
(13) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Commerce, or his delegate;
(1/,) "State" means any of the several States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, and the territories and possessions of the United States;
(15) "stock", with respect to any fish, means a type, species, or other
category capable of management as a unit;
(16) "traditional foreign fishing" means longstanding, active, and con-
tinuous fishing for a particular stock of fish by citizens of a particular
foreign nation in compliance with any applicable international fishery agree-
ments and with the laws of such foreign nation; and
(17) "United States", when used in a geographical context, includes all
States.
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY
SEe. Al. (a) CONTIGUOUS FISHERY ZONE.-(1) There is established, for the
duration of this Act, a fishery zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the United
States. The United States shall exercise exclusive fishery management responsi-
bility and authority within this contiguous fishery zone.
(2) The contiguous fishery zone has as its inner boundary the outer limits of
the territorial sea, and as its seaward boundary a line drawn so that each point
on the line is 197 nautical miles from the inner boundary.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the fishery management re-
sponsibility and authority of the United States within the contiguous fishery
zone of the United States shall not include or be construed to extend to highly
migratory species, except to the extent ?such species are not managed pursuant to
bilateral or multilateral international fishery agreements.
(b) ANADROMOUS SPECrES.-The fishery management responsibility and au-
thority of the United States with respect to anadromous species, for the duration
of this Act, extends to such species wherever found throughout the migratory
range of such species: Provided, That such responsibility and authority shall not
extend to such species to the extent found within the territorial waters or con-
tigaotas fishery zone of any other nation.
(e) GENERAL.-The United States shall manage and conserve, and have prdf-
erential rights to, fish within the contiguous fishery zone, and with respect to
anadromous species of fish, pursuant to the responsibility and authority vested
in it pursuant to this section, subject to traditional foreign fishing rights as de-
fined and recognized in accordance with section 5 of this Act.
(d) REGULATIONS.-Yhe Secretary is -authorized to promulgate such regula-
tions in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, as are nrces-
sary to implement the purposes of this Act. The Secretary is further authorized
to amend such regulations in the manner originally promulgated.
Sue. 5. (a) GENERAL: The Secretary and the Secretary of State, after con-
sultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, may authorize fishing within the
contiguous fishery zone of the United States, or for anadromous species or both,
by citizens of any foreign nation, in accordance with this section, only if such,
nation has traditionally engaged in such fishing prior to the date of enactment
of this Act.
(b) PROVISIONS.-The kztlozcable level of traditional foreign fishing shall be
set upon the basis of the portion of any stock which cannot be harvested by
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : (CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
citizens of the United States. Allowed traditional foreign fishing and fishing by
citizens of the United States annually sha?7l not, for any stock, exceed the o;oti-
munz sustainable yield for such stock.
(c) RECrhRoefl' .-TraditioryaaZ foreign fishing rights shall not be recogni;,ed
pursuant to t!eis section unless any foreign nation claiming such rights demon-
strates that it grants similar traditional fishing rights to citizens of the United
States within the contiguous fishery zone of such nation, if any exist, or with
respect to anadromous species which spawn in the fresh or estuarine waters of
such nations.
(d) PROCIcnuRES.-(1) In determining the allowable level of foreign fishing
with respect to any stock, the Secretary shall utilize the best available scientific
information, i.seludin.g, but not limited to, catch and effort statistics and relevant
available data compiled by any foreign nation claiming traditional fishing rigli,ts.
(2) The Secretary is authorized to establish reasonable fees which shall be
paid by the citizens of ann foreign nation engaged in exercising foreign ftsVng
rights recogniued under this section. Such fees shall be set in an an amount suffi-
cient to reimburse the United States for administrative expenses incurred pursu-
ant to this section and for an equitable share of the management and conservation
expenses incurred. by the United States in accordance with this Act, including
the cost of regulation and enforcement.
(e) PRoHnurro..-Except as provided in his Act, it shall be unlawful for any
person not a citizen of the United States to own or operate a fishing vessel or
fishing support vessel engaged in fishing in the contiguous fishery zone of the
United States ~kr for anadromous species of fish.
MARINE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLANNING
SEC. 6. (a) OBJECTIVES. It is the intent of the Congress that the followi4ng
objectives be considered and included (to the extent practicable) in plans, p; ^o-
grams, and standards for the management and conservation of marine fisheries;
(1) evaluation of actual and foreseeable costs and benefits attributable thereto;
(2) enhancement of total national and world food supply; (3) improvenaent of
the economic well-being of ftshermcn; (E) maximum feasible utilization of
methods, practices, and techniques that are optimal in terms of efficiency, pro-
tection of the ecosystem of which fish are a part, and conservation of stocks and
species; and (5) effectuation of the purposes stated in section 2(b) (4) of this
Act. Due consitcration shall be given to alternative methods for achieving these
objectives.
(b) FISHERIES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL.-There is established a Fisheries ttifan-
agement Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Council"). The Council shall
consist of 11 individual members, as follows:
(1) a Chairman, a qualified individual who shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate;
(2) three Government members, who shall be the Secretary, the Secretary
of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, and the Secretary
of State, or their duly authorized representatives; and
(8) seven nongovernment members, who shall be appointed by the Presi-
dent, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the following
basis-
(A) three to be selected from a? list of qualified individuals recom-
mended by each of the regional fisheries commissions or their successors,
one of whom shall be a representative respectively of Atlantic, Pacific,
and Gulf of Mexico commercial fishing efforts; and
(B) four to be selected from a list of qualified individuals recom-
mended by the National Governors Conference, at least one of whom
shall be a representative of a coastal State.
As used in this paragraph, a list of qualified individuals shall consist of not
less than three individuals for each Council member to be appointed.
As used in this subsection, "qualified individual" means an individual who is
distinguished for his knowledge and experience in fisheries management and
conservation, and who is equipped by experience, known talents, and interests
to further the policy of this Act effectively, positively, and independently if
appointed to be a member of the Board. The terms of office of the nongovernmestt
members of the Council first taking office shall expire as designated by the
President at the time of nomination--two at the end of the first year; two at the
end of the second year; and three at the end of the third year. The term of office
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
of the Chairman of the council shall be 3 years. Successors to members of the
Council shall be appointed in the same manner as the original members and,
except in the case of Government members, shall have terms of office expiring
3 pears from the date of expiration of the terms for which their predecessors
were appointed. Any individual appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the
expiration of any term of office shall be appointed for the remainder of that
term.
(c) POWERS AND DUTIES. The Council shall-
(1) engage in the preparation of a plan or plans for marine fisheries.
management and conservation;
(2) provide information and expert assistance to States and local or-
regional fisheries authorities in marine fisheries management and conserva-
tion;
(3) adopt, amend, and repeal such rules and regulations governing the
operation of the Council and as are necessary to carry out the authority
granted under this section; conduct its affairs, carry on operations, and
maintain offices; appoint, fix the compensation, and assign the duties of such
experts, agents, consultants, and other full- and part-time employee as it
deems necessary or appropriate;
(4) consult on an ongoing basis (A) with other Federal agencies and
departments; (B) with officials of coastal States who are concerned with
marine fisheries management and conservation planning; (C) with appro-
priate officials of other nations which are exercising traditional foreign fish-
ing rights, through the good offices of the Secretary of State; and (D) with
owners and operators of fishing vessels;
(5) enter into, without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes of
the United States (41 U.S.C. 5), such contracts, leases, cooperative agree-
ments, or other transactions as may be necessary in the conduct of its func-
tions and duties with any person (including a government entity);
(6) prepare a survey of fisheries subject to the emergency conservation
and management authority granted to the United States by this Act, includ-
ing, but not limited to, depleted stocks and stocks threatened with depletion;
and
(7) survey, study, and prepare a marine fisheries management plan set-
ting forth the elements of a national management system to conserve and
protect fish.
(d) REVIEW BY CoNGRESS.-The Council shall submit the marine fisheries
management plan adopted by the Council to the Senate Committee on Commerce
and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Repre-
sentatives not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. The
marine fisheries management plan shall be deemed approved at the end of the
first period of 180 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after such
date of transmittal unless the House of Representatives and the Senate pass
resolution in substantially the same form stating that the marine fisheries man-
agement plan is not favored. If the House and the Senate pass resolutions of
for review pursuant to this subsection, the Council shall prepare, determine, and
adopt a revised plan. Each such revised plan shall be submitted to Congress
for review pursuant to this subsection. For purposes of this section (1) continuity
of session of Congress is broken only by an adjournment sine die; and (2) the
days on which either House is not in sesssion because of an adjournment of more
than 3 days to a day certain are excluded in the computation of the 180-day
period.
(e) MISCETLANEOUS.-(1) The marine fisheries management plan which is
adopted by the Council and which becomes effective after review by the Congress
is not subject to review by any court.
(2) The Council shall hare a seal which shall be judicially recognized.
(3) The Administrator of General Services shall furnish the Council with such
offices, equipment, supplies, and services as he is authorized to furnish to any
other agency or instrumentality of the United States.
(4) A member of the Council who is not otherwise an employee of the Federal
Government may receive $300 per diem when engaged in the actual performance
of his duties as a member of the Council plus reimbursement for travel, subsist-
ence, and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of such duties.
Each member of the Council shall be authorized such sums as are necessary
to enable him to appoint and compensate an adequate qualified full-time profes-
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 :fCIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
sional staff responsible and subject to his control, but not otherwise subject to
cnnlrol by the Cnunei.l.
(f) TERMINATroN.-The Council shall cease to exist 80 days rafter adopt'on
by Congress of the marine fisheries pign pursuant to subsection (d) of this
section.
(g) AUTHORIZATION.-There are hereby authorized to be appropriated ;'or
tlrc parposex of this section a sum not to exceed $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years ending June 30,1:175, and June 30, 1971).
i.VTEILVATIONAL FISIIE5Y A.CREEMENTS
SEC. 7. (a) GENERAr.-The Secretary of State, upon the request of and in
cooperation with the Secretary, shall initiate and conduct negotiations with
any foreign nation which is engaged in, or whose citizens are engaged in, fishing
in t1u- contiguous fishery zone of the United States or for anadromous speeias.
Thr Secretary of State, upon the request of and in cooperation with the Seere-
hary, shall, in addition, initiate and conduct negotiations with any foreign
nation in whose contiguous fishery zone or equivalent economic zone citizens
of the i%nited States arc engaged in fishing or with respect to anadromous species
sax to which sveh, nation asserts management responsibility and authority and
for which citizens of the United States The purpose of such negotiatian,s
shull be to enter into international fishery agreements on a bilateral or multi-
lateral l;axis tc effeetuute the purposes, policy, and provisions of this Act. Such
o!Irc'crnenIs 'nay inclurte, but nerdl not be limited to, agreements to provide
for the management and conservation, of--
U) coastal species, which are found in both the contiguous fishery zone
of the United States and the equivalent such zone of a foreign nation al-
jacent thereto;
(t ) ana'lrom.ou.s species, which are found during the course of their
migrations in, ocean areas .subject to the fish cry management responsibility
and aathorital of more than one nation:
(.3 highly migratory species which are or may be covered by interna-
tional fi,she,, agreements; and
(411 coastal species, which are found in areas subject to, the fishery man-
agement responsibility and authority of any foreign nation, through meas-
ere.s ^ohich clime citizens of the United States to harvest an, appropriate
portion of inch sperlcs in accordance with traditional United States fishing
rights in, such, areas.
(h) RErrEW: -''she Secretary of State shdeil review in cooperation with the
Secretary, each treaty, convention, and other international fishery agreements
to which the United States is party to determine whether the provisions of such
agreernf its are Consistent with the purposes, policy, and provisions of this Act.
If any provision or terms of any such agreement are not so consistent, the
Secretary of State shall initiate negotiations to amend such agreement.: Pro-
rided. That nothing in this Act shall be construed to abrogate any duty or
responsibility of the United States under any lawful treaty, convention, or other
in,tcrnationa.l agreement which is in effect on the date of enactment of this Ac'.
(e) BO tiD_9RIES 1 r.&IVFIfV.NT.-The Secretary of State is authorized and.
directed to initsate and conduct negotiations with adjacent foreign nations to
rstuhitxh, (lie boundaries of the eontiguoU, fishery zone of the United States M.
relation, to any such nation.
(it) \rovrECO,,NITIOv.--Tt is the sense of the Congress that the U.S. Govrr-n-
Inent shall not recognize the limits of the contiguous fishery zone of any foreign
nation beyond I2 nautical miles from the base line from which the territorial
sea is measured, unless such nation recognizes the traditional fishing rights of
citizens of the United States, if any, within any claimed extension of such zon4
or with respect to anadromous species, or recognizes the management of 7,.ighl;7
migratory species by the appropriate existing bilateral or multilateral inter-
national fishery agreements irrespective of whether such nation is party thereto.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAWS
SI c 8. hothir.g in this Act shall be construed to extend the jurisdiction m,'
cull State over any natural resources beneath and in the wate,rn beyond tho
territorial sea oP the Un.r.ted States, or to diminish the jurisdiction of any Stata
over any natural resource beneath, and in the waters within the terriorial secs
of the United States.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 :CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
SFC. 9. (a) PROHIBITED ACTS. It is unlawful for any person to-
(1) violate any provision of this Act, or any regulation issued under this
Act, regarding fishery within the contiguous fishery zone or with respect to
anadrornous species;
(2) violate any provision of any international fishery agreement to which
the United States is party negotiated or reviewed pursuant to this Act, to
the extent that such agreement applies to or covers fishing within the con-
tiguous fishery zone or fishing for anadromous species as defined in section
4 of this Act;
(3) ship, transport, purchase, sell or offer for sale, import, export, possess,
control, or maintain in his custody any fish taken in violation of paragraph
(1) or (2) of this subsection where such person knew or had reason to
know that such taking was not lawful;
(4) violate any ditty issued regulation under this Act with respect to
making, keeping, submitting, or furnishing to the Secretary any records,
reports, or other information;
(5) refuse to permit a duly authorized representative of the Secretary,
or of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating,
to board a fishing vessel or fishing-support vessel subject to his control
where the purpose of such requested boarding is to inspect the catch-, fishing
year, ship's log, or other records or materials; or
(6) fail to cooperate with a duly authorized representative of the Secre-
tary, or of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating, engaged in a reasonable inspection pursuant to paragraph (5)
of this subsection, or to resist any lawful arrest.
(b) CIVIL PENALTIES.-(1) Any person who is found by the Secretary, after
notice and an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 554 of title 5,
United States Code, to have committed an act prohibited by subsection. (a) of
this section, shall be liable to the United States for a civil forfeiture in accord-
ance with subsection (d) of this section and for a civil penalty. The amount of
the civil penalty shall not exceed $25,000 for each day of each violation. The
amount of such civil penalty shall be assessed by the Secretary, or his delegate,
by written notice. In determining the amount of such penalty, the Secretary shall
take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the prohibited
'acts committed and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
require.
(2) Any person who is found to have committed a prohibited act and against
whom a civil penalty is assessed under paragraph (1) of this subsection may
obtain review in the appropriate court of appeals of the United States by filing
a notice of appeal in such court within 30 days from the date of such order and
by simultaneously sending a copy of such notice by certified mail to the Secretary.
The Secretary shall promptly file in such court a certified copy of the record
upon which such violation was found or such penalty imposed, as provided in
section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. The findings of the Secretary shall be
set aside if found to be unsupported by substantial evidence, as provided by
section 706(2) (c) of title 5, United States Code.
(3) If any person fails to pay an assessment of a civil penalty after it has
become a final and unappealablc order, or after the appropriate court of appeals
has entered final judgment in favor of the Secretary, the Secretary shall refer
the matter to the Attorney General, who shall recover the amount assessed in any
appropriate district court of the United States. In such action, the validity and
appropriateness of the final order imposing the civil penalty shall not be subject
to review.
(II) The Secretary may, in his discretion, compromise, modify, or remit, with
or without conditions, any civil penalty which is subject to imposition or which
has been imposed under this subsection.
(e) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.-Any person who willfully commits an act prohibited
by subsection (a) of this section shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than
$50,000 or imprisoned for no more than 1 year, or both.
(d) CIVIL PoRrEITuRE.-(1) Any district court of the United States shall
have jurisdiction, upon application by the Secretary or the Attorney General, to
order forfeited to the United States any fish or fishing gear, used, intended for
use, or acquired by activity in violation of any provision of subsection (a)
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
lO
of this section. In any such proceeding, such court may at any time enter such
restraining orders or prohibitions or take such other actions as are in the in-
terest of justice, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds in
connection with any property subject to civil forfeiture.
(2) If a judgment is entered under this subsection for the United States, the
Attorney General is authorized to seize all property or other interest dc-cleared
forfeited upon such terms and conditions as are in the interest of justice..411
provisions of four relating to the disposition of forfeited property, the proceeds
from the sate of such property, the remission or mitigation of forfeitures for
violation of the customs laws, and the compromise of claims and the award of
compensation to informants with respect to forfeitures shall apply to civil for-
feitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under this subsection, inso-
far as applicable and not inconsistent with. the provisions of this section. Such
duties as are s,m,posed upon the collector of customs or any other person with re-
spect to seizure, forfeiture, or disposition of property under the customs laws
shall be performed with respect to property used, intended for use, or acquired
by activity in violation of any provision of subsection (a) of this section by such
ofleer-s or other persons as may be designated for that purpose by the Secretary
of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating.
SEC. 10. (a) GENERAL.-The provisions of this Act shall be enforced, together
with regulations issued under this Act, by the Secretary and the Secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard is operating. Such Secretaries may by
agreement, on a reimbursable basis or otherwise, utilize the personnel, services,
and facilities of any other Federal agency in the performance of such duties.
(h) PowL'R,,. Any person duly authorized pursuant to subsection (a) of
this section may-
(1) board and inspect any fishing vessel or fishing-support vessel which is
within the contiguous fishery zone of the United States, or which he has
reason to believe is fishing for anadromvus species;
(2) arrest any person, with or without a warrant if he has reasonahle
cause to believe that such person has committed an act prohibited by sec-
tion 9(a) of this Act;
(3) execute any warrant or other process issued by an officer or court
of competent jurisdiction; and
(Ir) seine all fish and fishing gear found onboard any fishing vessel or
fishing-support vessel engaged in any act prohibited by section 9(a) of this
Act.
(c) ('ouRTs--The district courts of the United States shall have ca'clws'~ve
jurisdiction over all cases or controversies arising under this Act. Such court may
issue all warrants or other process to the extent necessary or appropriate. In the
case of Guam, such actions may be bought and such process issued by the District
Court of Guam: in the case of the Virgin Islands, by the District Court of the
Virgin Islands; and in the case of American Samoa, by the District Court for the
District of Ifowaii. The aforesaid courts shall have jurisdiction over all actions
brought under this Act without regard to the amount in controversy or the
citizenship of the parties.
,Sue,. (a) ErFECTIVE DATE.-The provisions of section 4 of this Act shall be-
come effective 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. All other provisions
of this Act shall become effective or,, the date of enactment.
(b) TERMIA'ATION DATE.-The provisions of this Act shall expire and ce2se
to be of any legal force and effect on such date as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or
other comprehensive treaty with respect to flshery jurisdiction, which the United
States has signed or is party to, shall come into force or is provisionally
Sue. 12. Except with respect to section 6 and section 9 of this Act, there are
authorized to be appropriated for the purposes of this Act to the Secretary s!tch
sums as are necessary not to exceed $/,000,000 for each of the fiscal years end-
ing June 30, .1975, June 30, 19T6, and June 30, 1977, and to the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating such sums as are necessary,
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
11
not to exceed $13,000,000 for each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1975,
June 30, 1976, and June 30, 1977.
Amend the title so as to read : "A bill to extend, pending international agree-
ment, the fisheries management responsibility and authority of the United States
over the fish in certain ocean areas in order to conserve and protect such fish
from depletion, and for other purposes."
Senator SPARIiMAN. The primary purpose of this bill is to extend the
U.S. fisheries jurisdiction from 12 miles to 200 miles until such time
as a general international agreement on fishery jurisdiction comes
into force.
We have several witnesses. Our first witness this morning will be
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.
Senator Stevens, we are glad to have you.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, I will be very happy to defer to
our Commerce Committee chairman. Senator Magnuson has been the
leader in this.
Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Magnuson said that he would prefer
that the two Senators from Alaska testify first.
Senator MAGNUSON. Mr. Chairman, I have no written statement
this morning. I wish to ask unanimous consent to put one in the rec-
ord, and I will have an oral statement after the other two Senators
testify.
Senator SPARKMAN. All right.
Senator MAGNUSON. So I will change seats with Senator Stevens.
Senator SPARKMAN. Sit over there by the microphone, Senator
Stevens. All right, Senator Stevens.
Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I may
ask you to print my statement in full in the record, I would like to
highlight it to save the time of the committee.
Senator SPARK.MAN. We have your statement, and it will be pub-
lished in the record in toto.
Senator STEVENS. It was my privilege to attend, along with members
of this committee, particularly my good friend from Maine, the meet-
ing in Caracas. I also attended the meeting in Geneva of the Law of
the Sea Conference. I have come away with the impression, as we were
all told at the time, that it does take a great deal of time to mold inter-
national law, and I do not think that we can argue with that statement.
The Senator from Maine, the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Pell,
and I were repeatedly told that it does take a great deal of time for
something like the Law of the Sea Conference, and I think it is fair
to say that for most issues under consideration in Caracas, we do have
time. We have the time for the world community to deliberate and
come up with a Law of the Sea Treaty that will promulgate sound
principles of international law that all can abide by.
The problem, in regard to fisheries, is that we have run out of time.
With the rapid expansion of the fishing effort that has been underway
in the world for the past 10 years, we find that the high seas fishery,
which had been practically untouched before that time, has now
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
12
reached. the point where the exploitation has gone beyond the limit of
sustained yield in many regions of the oceans, and I would like to
point out to the committee. at least 11 commercially valuable species
off our stores have, been depleted or are threatened with depletion.
These are the, haddock, the herring, the menhaden, and yellowtail
flounder of the Atlantic; the mackerel, sable fish, shrimp, Alaska
pollock, yellow fin sole, and the hake of the Pacific; and the halibut
of the Atlantic and Pacific. This is slightly less than half of the total
number of species that have been severely damaged by overfishing
worldwide.. But the pressure of foreign fleets off our shores means to
me that we do not have time to wait for the Law of the Sea Confer-
ence, as far as the fisheries issues are concerned. As far as taking action
to protect this protein base that is off our shores the urgency is
substantial.
'P.OATPT ACT[ON LTr(,Fi) ON S. 1988
I would like to urge this committee to act promptly upon the bill
that the Commerce Committee has reported to the Senate and is now
before you, through the leadership of our chairman. I think we have
a bill that is practical, and I would like to particularly emphasize the
fact that in is an Interim- measure. It is unilateral action admittedly,
but it is still an interim measure, one that will put into effect sound
conservation practices pending the completion of the Law of the Sea
Conference.
Mr. Chairman, there are more than 50 percent more nations in the
Law of the Sea Conference than there were involved in the Geneva
Law of the. Sear Conference that met 14 years a.gro. We now have 149
nations fry ino to reach an agreement in the Law of the Sca Con-
tei?encc. I'here, are only 33 nations who signed'the previous agreement
1 ha-f, was reached with regard to the law of the sea. I think it can be
sail, as I pointed out in my sttu.tememt, that there are not many nations
in the world really relying upon the old Geneva Conference Agree-
ment (uttered into 1.6 years ago as sound international law. There are
at lea s3..59 more rations participating in the Law of the Sea Con-
forence now, and not all of those who participated 16 years ago signed
IIMf ac,recn)ent. So it would he very difficult for me to urge you, and
Hs matter of fact, I would urge you not to rely on article 7 of the
1958 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the High Seas, which
has been proposed as an alter:{rative to the route that our committee
has taken with regard to S. 1988. This bill, S. 1988, presents the only
workable solution that T know of with regard to our fisheries, and that
is to take the action that will give us the authority to impose sound
conservation principles beyond the contiguous zone today, and these
would be principles that -would be al-,plied not only to foreign fisher-
men bitt, to our own fishermen to protect the resources of the sea until
the. world has reached an agreement as to what should be the principles
with regard to the, Law of the Sea Conference.
if I had my way, I would have declared a moratorium off our sho -es
at the, very beginning of this pressure that came upon our fishing
stocks. 1 see we have some good representation from New England
here. I thine the New England people have had as much or greater
pressure than we have had off of Alaska, but it is coming in great
numbers off Alaska now. We have already lost hake, and they took
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/0713CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
over a billion pounds of Alaska pollock out of the Bering Sea in 1 year
alone. That species cannot stand that pressure. And it is not being
harvested at all by American fishermen or by Canadian fishermen, to
my knowledge. I think that we must take the action that is necessary
to give us the interim control over the fishing stocks oft our shores,
and that is the purpose of this bill before you.
I am very pleased to be associated with my good friend from Wash-
ington. He has been known as the third Senator from Alaska. We are.
proud to have him along with us in terms of this battle to protect,
if we can, the fishing stocks of the North Pacific as well as those from
the North Atlantic and other areas under so much heavy pressure.
Thank you very much for your courtesy.
[Senator Stevens' prepared statement follows:]
Mr. Chairman, I wish, first of all, to express to the members of this Commit-
tee my appreciation for the opportunity to testify today. I attach great importance
to the urgency for early consideration by the Senate Foreign Relations Commit-
tee in its examination of the bill S. 1988 as an instrument of United States
Foreign Policy. It is crucial that the short- and long-range effects of an enacted
S. 1988 on foreign relations and on the developing international legal order be
accurately anticipated in Senate deliberations on the legislation.
For several years I have followed closely the evolution of negotiations aimed
at establishing an international legal order of the sea. Along with members of
this Committee, as -an advisor to the United States delegation, I attended the
third United Nations Conference on Law of the Sea, which met in Geneva and
again in Caracas. I was afforded the opportunity to discuss main trends in the
Law of the Sea negotiations at some length with leaders of the United States
and foreign delegations. Most of those with whom I spoke in Caracas were very
aware of the possibility of action by the United States Congress on matters
directly related to Law of the Sea issues-particularly of the emergency fish-
eries conservation and management measure, S. 1988.
I would like to take this opportunity to share with you some observations on
current trends in the Law of the Sea negotiations and an assessment of the -
importance and ramifications of immediate action by Congress to conserve Amer-
ican fisheries in the interim period prior to the signing of a comprehensive Law
of the Sea treaty. My visit to Caracas left me with little doubt that the en-
lightened national and international interest will best be served by the prompt
enactment of S. 1988 and that the process of establishing a fair system of inter-
national law governing the world's oceans will be facilitated by this action.
When, in 1971, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolu-
tion calling for a major conference on the Law of the Sea, it did so in anticipa-
tion of a rapid global intensification of the use of the high seas for commerce,
resource exploitation, military activities, and scientific research. The General
Assembly recognized the desirability of preventing this intensification from
occurring in anything but a peaceful manner. The success of the Law of the Sea
Conference is dependent upon the degree to which it can anticipate potential
ocean-related problems and confrontations and resolve them by an equitable
and agreeable statement of law before injury occurs. I think it is fair to say that
for most issues under consideration by the delegates in Caracas there is time for
deliberation-even if the promulgation' of a comprehensive Law of the Sea
Treaty is delayed longer as most Caracas observers are now predicting.
However, in the fisheries issue we have already run out of time. A rapid inter-
national expansion of effort in fishing has been underway world wide for more
than ten years. While more resources of the high seas have barely been touched
commercially, the exploitation of fisheries has been pushed to, and even beyond,
the limit of sustained yield in many regions of the ocean. At least 11 commer-
cially valuable species have been depleted, or are threatened with depletion,
off the coasts of the United States ; these are the haddock, herring, menhaden,
and yellow tail flounder of the Atlantic ; the mackerel, sable fish, shrimp, Alaska
pollock, yellow fin sole, and hake of the Pacific ; and the halibut of the Atlantic
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 :1CkIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
and Pacific. This is slightly less than half the total number of species severely
damaged by orer-fishing world wide.
The depletion of stocks because of inadequate conservation practices is of no
benefit to any nation in the long run, including those responsible for such destruc-
tion. A fishery is a self-renewing source of protein which, if properly managed
and protected, can endure indefinitely. However, if it is senselessly exploited,
stocks are red iced below the level where self-renewal is possible and the fishery
is destroyed. Protein is more and more becoming a limited commodity in this
crowded world and the extensive destruction of fisheries through over-fishing,
particularly off the coasts of the United States, will in the long run be as detri-
mental to the international community as to the United States itself.-
Nearly all or the present 11 specie, of fish now in advanced stages of depletion
off the coast. of the United States have been the subject of some sort of inter-
national agreement. Many fundamental and necessary conservation regulaticns
cannot he imposed on foreign fleets under such agreements. As an example, one
highly visible source of concern to United States fishermen and conservation-
ists is the small mesh monofilament net which is often found drifting at sea
or washed onto beaches. Foreign fishermen employ huge expanses of such ret
to sweep clean local populations of fish located by advanced sonar equipment. The
nets have been outlawed for use by United. States fishermen because they kill
immature fish of lesser economic value but vital to the perpetuation of the
species. However, the mobility of foreign fleets allows them to attack stocks
of fish with these nets, reaping maximum short-term benefits, and to move on
when there is little of value left; perpetuation of the species is apparently not of
immediate concern to those who practice "pulse fishing."
b'itihermen in Bristol Bay, Alaska, have little doubt about the lack of con-
cern of some foreign fishermen for fundamental conservation principles. The
Japanese high seas salmon fishermen, who in 1973 caught 40% of the total catch
of Bristol Bay salmon. were informed early this year that the best scientific
evidence indicated that two severe winters had reduced the Bristol Bay salmon
population to below the spawning requirement. They expressed sympathy-and
continued fishing. Bristol Bay has now been declared a state and national dis-
aster area becsuse of Vie depleted salmon runs upon which the economy of the
area depends.
It was heartening for me to learn earlier in the summer through State De-ent ca
had develo of ar200 mileetconomicczo e. TheaState1Department joinedithis grow in favor
national consensus in what I believe to be a major Vowing edtcn
July 11 in the Law of the Sea Conference Plenary byAmbassador John H.
Stevenson, leader of the United States delegation. Ambassador Stevenson pro-
posed a 200 rni:e economic zone giving the coastal nation exclusive rights to all
seabed resources and preferential rights to living resources. This means that
within the zone the coastal nation would have full discretionary control over
i ne exploitation of the seabed, but would be obligated to allow foreign fishermen
to exploit coastal stocks which could not be fully utilized by the coastal nation up
to a scientifically determined maximum sustainable yield. International navi-
-ation and over:Iight would remain unhampered.
8. 1988 closely resembles the State Department fisheries proposal. It attempts
to minimize economic hardship and dislocation caused historic foreign fishermen
of United States coastal stocks by stricter conservation and management regu-
lations. The State Department proposal was viewed as one of the most moder-
ate proposals under consideration in Caracas. Other economic zone proposals
which enjoyed major support called for coastal state sovereignty over all re-
sources within 200 miles of shore, while the most extreme proposals advocate a
200 mile territorial sea. The only nation of which I am aware expressly to oppose
any kind of 200 mile economic zone is ,Japan. However, the Japanese, I feel, have
indicated the inevitability of a 200 mile economic zone in international law for
they sought concessions in the zone despite their continued opposition to it.
The popularity of the general 200 mile fishing jurisdiction concept as a con-
servation as well as an economic measure is based on the general assessment
that it is the coastal nation which has the greatest interest in conserving and
managing fish stocks within 200 miles of its shores, particularly if it has prefer-
ential or exclusive rights to coastal fisheries. This interest is plainly not shared
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/075: CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
in the same degree by distant water fishermen. Furthermore, experience with
international management authorities has generally been disappointing.
Of great concern to me is that although there now exists almost universal
agreement that the coastal nation has the right to conserve and protect its
fisheries within 200 miles of shore, implementation of this agreement must
wait until all of the more than 80 issues under consideration in Caracas have
been resolved and incorporated into a single comprehensive Law of the Sea
Treaty. Ambassador Stevenson in his July 11 speech emphatically stated that
the United States delegation would accept nothing less than a single compre-
hensive treaty-this position is shared by a number of foreign delegations.
Unfortunately, this position does nothing to answer the difficult reality we
are facing. It would be a cruel irony if the mechanics of the Law of the
Sea Conference contribute to a continued lawlessness on the seas and that
fish stocks are destroyed while the world is working to preserve them.
The basis for my concern is my conclusion, shared by many others, that the
prospects for a prompt agreement on many Law of the Sea issues are not good.
It is my understanding that several international scholars who only last year
testified against S. 1988 are now, after Caracas, considering returning and
reversing their testimony. They have concluded, as I have, that it is unrealis-
tic to expect American fisheries to survive as long as will be necessary for
a Law of the Sea agreement to be reached.
The more than 80 issues which comprised the official agenda at Caracas are
of enormous political, strategic, and economic importance to the international
community. World interest in the Law of the Sea negotiations has increased
remarkably since the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea
was held in Geneva in 1958. An unprecedented 149 nations participated in the
1974 Caracas Conference, 59 more than were present in Geneva sixteen years
ago. The importance of this cannot be overemphasized for global negotiations are
based primarily on a consensus method of agreement, or, if consensus is unat-
tainable, on a one nation-one vote, two-thirds majority voting procedure. Most
new participants in the negotiations are developing nations, newly independent,
which have only recently turned their attention to Law of the Sea issues.
They mistrust the motives of developed nations and doubt their own present
ability to discern their future national interest in Law of the Sea issues. Many
have, therefore, taken highly nationalistic and secure positions which are,
unfortunately, quite unacceptable to developed maritime nations, such as the
United States. Privately, the new participants admit that they will eventually
compromise on their positions but they do not presently have sufficient con-
fidence in their own knowledge of the issues to negotiate realistically, and they
plainly do not see hastiness as working in their favor. Thus for a large bloc
of developing nations, all of whom have one vote, the Law of the Sea negotia-
tions have just begun. The 33 signers of the 1958 Geneva Law of the Sea
Convention now make up less than a quarter of the nations now participating
in Law of the Sea negotiations. Several new nations which did not participate
in the Geneva Conference have gone so far as to question, and implicitly repo-
diate, the Geneva Convention as viable international law because of the lack
of adequate representation of developing nations in the 1958 proceedings. Few
nations today would risk relying on a provision of the Geneva Convention as
having the force of international law when there is widespread agreement
in 1974 superseding it as, I believe, is the case with Article VII of the 1958
Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High
Seas which has been proposed as an alternative to enacting S. 1988.
I continue to believe that international law governing the oceans is attainable
and eminently worthwhile, particularly law preserving world fisheries. But if the
present lack of concern for basic conservation principles on the seas persists
among some foreign fish operators for the indefinite amount of time necessary
to conclude the Law of the Sea negotiations then we may be left very little of
value to preserve. Enactment of S. 1988 by the United States will not be preju-
dicial to the successful formulation of a Law of the Sea treaty ; it is not a sub-
stitute for Law of the Sea negotiations on fisheries. On the contrary, S. 1988
conforms closely to world trends and is strictly an interim conservation measure.
I am confident that, given the consensus now evident in Caracas, any eventual
Law of the Sea treaty will affirm or strengthen the fisheries protection estab-
lished through S. 1988.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : ~0t4-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
'1'herc hits; been expresod sonic disappointment with the management pro-
visions of S. 1988. Some would like to see provision for domestic management
intrncdiate effoct rather than a study plan which would institute domestic
nu,nagcntent in two pears. Strong domestic management whether immediate or
delayed is crucial to the success of S. 955. However, two years is prolably
adequate time for the implementation of domestic management since it will take
soiue time for ITS. fishermen to build their fleets to the point where they are
ob!e to catch as much as foreigners are catching now. Furthermore S. 988 calls
for a. -,radial rather than an immediate phaaedown in foreign fishing.:Che point
is t hat i he phase down must be started now.
There has been no moratorium on international fishing within 200 miles off our
shores in de'erence to the deliberations in Caracas and the world consensus evi-
dent there. It does indeed take time to formulate international law and the
nations fishing our coastal and anadromous stocks to the point of depletion are
apparently suite content to wait. We must act firmly and demonstrate openly
we will not abandon our commitment, enunciated in Senate Concurrent Resolu-
tion 11, to preserve United States fisheries. Strength, rather than weakness;, on
this issue wv_11 not only be in the overall best interest of the United States, but
will serve the world by removing iii impot?tant incentive for delay in the Law of
the Sera negotiations.
I returned from Caracas with the conviction that we must act to extend our
fisheries management authority to 200 miles. This United States Congress is now
the only organization capable of tasking measures to insure the survival of Iinitetl
States fisheries. Thank you.
Senator SPARKALNN. You did attend the Caracas meeting ?
Senator ~+TF7vF.Ns. Yes, Mr. Chairman, along with Senator Mushie
and Senator Yell, [ was at the Caracas meeting, and I also was at the
preliminary Genera meeting.
5F.t'T[ON 7 OF 1155 C0T VEN'rION ON RISTTINO AND CONSERVATION
OF THE TIIATT SEAS
Senator SP tI1KMAN. Yoga say section 7 should be striker?
Senator STFVFNS. I say that there are people who have suggested to
this coaninittee. as they did suggest to is, that section 7 of the 1 58
convection conld V e, relied upon to protect our fishing stocks, There
has been a suggestion that article 7 he implemented and I am opposed
to that because, in the first place, it- requires the initiation of proce-
dures to bring about compliance, and in the second place and most
importantly, the two nations that ale doing the most fishing off our
shores, hus,sia and Japan, did not sign that agreement. So, if we take
action tinder the 1958 convention. tae are taking action unilaterally
against Japan and Russia a,nytwray. I think we ought to take the interim
unilateral action against, the whole v-orld. as far as protection of our
fisheries issues are concerned. Tit would do its no good to take unilateral
action tinder the 1958 convention.
S. 1n8s SITPPORTED AS INTERIM MEASURE
Senator SPARKMAN. Do you favor the bill as reported from die
Commerce Committee?
Senator STEVENS. I certainly support that bill and I think ir is the
least we can no at the present time, it is an interim irteasure, it is not as
far as 1 would like to go, but I do be] ieve, it is a good measure.
Senator SI'AIITZM.'.N. Thank you very much.
Senator Nfusk-ie.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/071 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
IIEARING IS APPROPRIATE
Senator Muslim. Yes, All.. Chairman. May I first of all, express my
appreciation for this hearing by the Foreign Relations Committee. I
am not sure the committee sought it, but I think it is appropriate that
we hold it.
CARACAS CONFERENCE
I also appreciate the fact that the distinguished Senator from Alas-
ka is the first witness. Ile and I attended the Caracas Conference in
mid-August. I gather that our impressions of the conference were
pretty much the same by the time we ended our 3 days of discussions.
Both of us indicated, as I think did Senator Pell., our support for
S. 1988, and the reaction was predictable. The reaction was that this
kind of unilateral action could conceivably torpedo the conference.
With respect to the conference, let me state my own view. I was
reassured that the prospects for eventually writing a new law of the
sea were more promising than I had expected them to be before I at-
tended the conference. goal is going to take
My second impression is that achieving that gmuch longer than the more optimistic of the delegates to the conference
would like to suggest.
Even President Amerasinghe [II. Shirley Amerasinghe of Sri Lan-
ka], chairman of the conference, expressed doubt in private, and later
in public, that an agreement can be written in the spring meeting, that
it may take at least another meeting in 1975. My own guess is that we
would have to go into 1976 before we could work out the complex range
of issues. There are some SO to 90 issues that must be worked out if a
new law of the sea is to be written.
In the meantime, as the Senator from Alaska has pointed out, time
is running out on our fisheries stocks. We created a stir in the confer-
ence by indicating our vigorous support of S. 1988. 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.
LACK OF RESTRAINT OF COUNTRIES FISHING IN U.S. WATERS
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, and I suggested that to them, and ot very little positive re-
Z-1
sponse, I might say.
Upon my return to this country and to my own State, I was dis-
turbed by the lack of restraint on the part of those countries which
are fishing our waters. haddock is already an endangered species, yet
Britain is now increasing its fishing for haddock off our coasts and
every evidence is that it is exceeding the quota agreed to under
ICNAF [International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fish-
eries]. This is taking place while the Law of the Sea Conference con-
tinues and we are asked to be restrained by unilateral legislation to
protect our rights. Where is the restraint in' the practice of their fish-
ing; fleets that Britain asks us to exercise with respect to legislation?
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : ICIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
Second, this summer there have been it number of incidents, and the
number are increasing, of intrusions upon the fixed gear of our fisFer-
men, such as gill-nets. It is wanton and apparently deliberate destruc-
tion, and haves our fishermen with nothing but uncertain claims
against nameless perpetrators operating through diplomatic chancels
with frustrations that. one can usually expect at the end of the road.
Where, is the restraint on the part of those countries and their fi,h-
ing fleets who are intruding ul?ornr our coastal waters and our Con-
tinental Shelf wit], respect to our fisheries resources and our fisher-
men? 1 %hera is their restraint, when they ask us to be restrained about
legislation ?
Where is the restraint with respect to the incidents of fishing that
have not been negotiated under 1CN?cF, of lobsters and other ground
.species uu[ so on, that incidental fishing goes on without any pretense
of control Under TCNA F and no restraint is shown ?
So I say to these great maritime countries, like the Soviet Union
and Japan, if you eally believe in the protection of the Law of the
Sea Conference, axrd you believe that protection may be undermined
by unilateral legislative action on the part of the United States, then
Isay to YOU and your fishing -lets that your unilateral violation of
what I think are lOgitima-te interests of American fishermen in our
own coastal waters is at least as great a danger to the Law of the Sea
Conference as this legislation would be.
'There is a precedent. for taking this kind of hard-nosed attitude to
protect our own people. That precedent has to do with the ICNIAF
agreement.
In June o t 1973, the. 17-member nations of the International Corn-
mission for r.he Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, or ICNAF, held their
annual meeting and discussed the need to limit the total fishing effort
in the Northwest Atlantic. The meeting did not produce any agree-
ment. becaus~2 we could not get any other members to support its,
apparently.
During the summer of 1973, in large part due to domestic political
pressure, the U.S. Government announced that it would withdraw its
membership from ICNAF if concrete progress was not made in 1973
to limit foreign fishing off our coasts. So in October of 1973, a special
meeting of IrPNAF was convened in Ottawa in which agreement was
reached on an overall quota system for fisheries off the Atlantic coast
of the United State.,. The quotas reached applied both to individual
species, some 54. a vl to the overall fish catch for 1974. The overall
quota was set. at 929 metric tons. For 1975 the overall quota is to be ra-
duced to 8 .50 metric tons, with the U.S. share of the- total quota in-
creasinQ from roughly 20 percent in 1974 to 25 percent in 1975.
For 1976, the meriher nations have agreed to set an overall quota
at a level consistent with maintaining the, maximum sustainable yield.
The difficulty with this agreement, and some of the Russian delegates
in Caracas pointed to this agreement as evidence of their good faith
in protecting our interests-the trouhlle is it is not enforceable. It is
not being enforced. Is it enforceable against what the British are
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/071clA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
doing? It does not have any effect at all in protecting our fishermen
with fixed gear from deliberate sabotage and destruction of their
gear which is taking place off our coasts.
A Russian delegate said to me, "Senator, you are being a little
hard-nosed about this." I said," Yes, but I have never seen you Rus-
sians reluctant to be hard-nosed in protecting your national interests,
and I say it is time for us to be hard-nosed about this matter if we
are to have any effective protection of our fishery stock." Protecting
these fisheries stocks is something more than a national interest, it is
a global interest. If we coastal states do not take effective action to
protect these stocks, who in heaven's name is going to do so? The
Russian fishing fleets and the Japanese fishing fleets will protect their
own, if they have anything to protelet; but who is going to protect
us?
S. 1988 SUPPORTED
So I say it is proper for us to support this legislation, and I do.
Whatever doubts I have had on that score before I went to Caracas
have been resolved by my attendance at that conference, notwith-
standing the fact that I would still prefer an international law of
the sea in this field. I would like to see that conference succeed. I think
it has more promise than I thought it had, but the hard negotiation
has not been done because those who were leading the conference did
not want to precipitate premature confrontations which could be de-
structive of an ultimate agreement. I understand that tactic. But
worthwhile as that tactic may be from the point of view of a long-
term success of the conference, it is eating up precious time, as the
Senator from Alaska has pointed out, in the preservation of our
coastal species.
M,r. Chairman, I apologize for taking this time but I have very
deep feelings about this whole issue when my own peoples' rights are
concerned and I want to take this opportunity to say so.
Senator SPARKMAN. We appreciate your statement. Since you were
a participant in the conference, naturally you are prepared to talk on
it.
POSSIBILITY OF OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION
Senator AIKEN. If this bill should be enacted into law, would there
be overlapping jurisdictions then between Russia, Japan, and Canada,
or any other countries that you can think of ?
Senator STEVENS. No; I do not see how this can happen. This is
unilateral action on the part of the United States alone to establish
a conservation zone beyond the 12-mile contiguous zone.
LENGTH OF TIME INVOLVED IN GETTING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT
Senator AIIKEN. Do you have an idea the United States, showing an
interest now in holding these hearings, might speed up the interna-
tional agreement which appears to be the ultimate necessity?
Senator STEVENS. Senator Aiken, I thought before I went to Caracas
that might be the case. I am convinced after my visit in Caracas there
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
are a sufficient, number of nations in t.he world that are participating
m the Law of the Sea Conference that do not want, an agreement.
Without regard to what we do, the pace of the Law of the Sea Con-
ference is going to he the same and la m now convinced, unless we take
some action we could well drag into the 14 years that was involved in
the 19r~'~ negotiations, and we do not have 14 years left of our fishing
tinder the present pressure that is being exerted by foreign fishing
fleets.
Senator ATKEN. But your trip to Caracas did not slow tip the
possibility any?
Senator S'irFVrNs. Well, I would hope that it did not.
Senator SYARKMAN. Senator Pell.
Senator PET.:L. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
~1?.ANS T.:1w
sP;A.1'['[llt PET,l,'S IN'FERES'r TV 04
Senator SPARNMAN. You were a member of the conference at
Caracas?
Senator PELT,. That is correct, and I have been an adviser, I think,
to every nneei:ing on this subject.. I have long been interested in it. since
I started working on the idea of a regime law for the oceans at the
time of the San Francisco conference many years back.
We have advanced a great deal over the years. President Johnson's,
statement on the, oceans, on the. heritage of all mankind is our national
policy. The question is the limitation of the area of the oceans and how
much freedom we have on it..
As a New Englander, as a Rhode Islander, I share completely the
thoughts that Senator Muskie expressed. We have seen our: fish
vacuumed up and dissolved before our eyes, the haddock have almost
disappeared. I went out in a Coast Guard helicopter and landed cat
a cutter and saw the ships engaged in these operations. I know how
me people titre sntterilig, not so nnnch from reduced profits, lint from
reduced colt lies. '1'hc result is that flue consumers are paying more for
fish and sea products than they ever hare.
I used to think that this bill of Senator 'Magnuson's might be harm-
ful to on I. net overall interests, but I hive now come to the conchrsion
that I would support it. I believe that, it would serve the purpose of
protecting on.r fisheries until the time comes when we have an rntei -
national treaty. While I see the ha ran of setting a poor example, I think
that is balanced by saving the industry. That is why I have, not co-
s;ponsored S. 1988, but will be glad to support it when it comes to a
Vote.
I believe that the current. Law of the Sea negotiatioarns will even-
rnally nun It n an "economic zone" which will more than protect U.S.
fishery interests and T filly support these negotiations. However, the
cal problem is when will this "Zone"' go into effect? Consegn,ently.
I believe, it. 11?cessary to support this interim legislation. In doing So.
I re mm ize that other countries, may, in following our lead. e,:tend
their ,jurisdiction anti restrict more than just the freedom of fishing.
Soule. nations nnay attennpt to restrict the right of free passage or n nvi-
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/072 : 1CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
gation. Should this happen, over thirty percent, of the oceans which
are now high seas would fall into national jurisdictions. This would
cause serious problems with respect to our commercial shipping and
the free transit of our military vessels. however, in balancing the
interests between the severe depletion of our coastal stocks and the
potential problems with respect to our rights of free transit, I have
to choose the option which would protect our fisheries. So for this
reason, and hanging my head a little in shame to see my friend, Mr.
Stevenson there, I will be supporting this legislation.
Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Case.
Senator C sE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had the privilege of being one of the Senate representatives at
this conference, too. It was my misfortune not to be there when the
Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Maine were there, but I
read in the local newspaper the sterling remarks they made in the press
conference, which have been largely reflected in the statements each
have made today, and I understand fully their concerns, because, after
all, we have fisheries in New Jersey on our coastline.
The best solution, as everybody has said, is the early completion of
an international agreement. The problems are enormous, of course.
New ground is going to be broken with respect to the availability of
the open oceans for all peoples.
We have before us another program we are hearing this morning
also, the Metcalf bill IS. 1134], dealing with the mining of resources. I
am not sure whether that is on our agenda but it is very much before us
in this connection.
I think we are not too far away from agreement with most of the
nations. That is my judgment. But that last mile is going to be a long,
tough one, and I have the greatest sympathy for the people in our
delegation who have been working on this thing so diligently and so
very effectively for so very long. Also, I have sympathy, of course, for
those concerns-proper concerns-of the representatives of the coastal
States. Their concern is not just a parochial, selfish one. We are talk-
ing about the preservation of conditions for an enormous amount of
fish for everybody. If we do not take that responsibility now it is not
going to be taken, and we are going to be that much worse off not only
in this country but in all nations that depend on the ocean for food.
The only thing I could say that perhaps has not been said-and I
say this in no way withdrawing my expression of admiration for the
the job our delegation and Mr. Stevenson has been doing-I think it
is probably time when this whole matter has to be taken up between
the heads of state. It cannot be left to people who negotiate at a level
below that because of the importance of the questions that are holding
up the agreement. I refer to the questions that I have mentioned and
particularly those that Senator Pell and Senator Muskie mentioned,
questions about the exploitation of the oceans, the sharing and control
of specific areas of the oceans, and the problems with nations who fear
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : 9 -RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
that Ave will exploit ocean minerals in a manner that is going to hurt
their domestic minj u industry. 0' r own position in regard to the
ocean resrnirce~. and in sharir,.g the profits of exploiting them, has in
my judgment, hee~T a very generous one. But I do not think we can
,un ee on reo?uletions that would fully protect the domestic interests of
all foreign nations. That is one of the things that is going to require
rregrotiations amrmt, meads of states.
EX1REssION OF INTT;RT;S'C
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. These observations are per-
haps the veryrabvicals kind, but they do indicate this committeegreat
interest in this enormous problem, and the, fact that we share very
much the coneea ns of the I .S. Delegation. I followed with the greatest
interest and some SA mpathy and support, the efforts of our Government
and our people. in seeking a solution to these problems. They should be
eneouraged and e.on'mended for what they have done.
Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you.
Senator Javits.
Senator .TAVJTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will get oriented before
I try any questions.
TIME INVOLVED TN WORKIN!i OUT I NTERNATTONAL AOREEMEN'r
Senator S1ARTCMA v. As I recall, way back in the days of John Foster
Dulles, we were trying to work out some kind of an. international
agreement for the, Law of the Sea, were we not?
Senator STE;VENS. We have been at it for a long time, Mr. Chairman.
I would. liae to add to my statement and echo the statements that
have been mr.de by the members of your committee concerning the ef-
forts of our delegation. I think the change that was put forth by Am-
hassador' Stevenson on July 11, as I pointed out in my statement;, was
a spectacular one, where, the, United States did indicate an agreement
Lo the 200-mile economic zone, subject to specific conditions. His lead-
ership and that of Prof. John Norton Moore at both Geneva and Ca-
racas, I think, has hewn unique and they have certainly the respect and
admiration of the members that we met representing delegations from
throughout the world. They are doing a fine job for us. Our problem
is that we, just do not think that the other people down there are going
to let them do it within the time limit that we see is necessary to prc-
l:ect our fisheries. That is all.
LF97FR FROM STATE DE1An'1'b-J' '' TO SENATOR ATAC,NUSON
Senator Magnuson. Mr. Chairman, I have here a letter sent to me
this morning by the State Department setting forth some new guide-
1 Ines for forei ;Hers to observe regarding; the incidental capture of our
Continental Shelf fishery resources. It applies to what you said.
May I just briefly say something at this time?
Senator SPARKMAN. Let me say in connection with the letter, we do
have
Senator M,AGNTrsoN. Have you seen the letter, too?
Senator Si ARKMAN. Yes, we have people from the State Department
here who will testify.
I The information referred to follows :1
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
23
DEPARTMENT Or STATE,
Washington, D.C., September 5, 1971.
IIon, WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Senate Comnu rce Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR -MAGNUSON: In response to your recent Inquiry concerning en-
forcement procedures in connection with continental shelf fishery resources, I am
pleased to advise you that foreign governments whose vessels fish above the
continental shelf of the United States are being notified of the following new
guidelines for the enforcement of our rights to continental shelf fishery
resources.
"1.. The taking of continental shelf fishery resources from the United States
continental shelf will result in the arrest and seizure of any vessel taking such
resources, except as provided by the United States in bilateral agreements. For
the purpose of determining whether such a taking has occurred, vessels may be
boarded when engaging in either of the following acts :
(a) Fishing above the continental shelf of the United States with gear which
is designed, specifically to catch continental shelf fishery resources ; or
(b) Fishing above the continental shelf of the United States with bottom gear
which can be expected to result in the catch of continental shelf fishery re-
sources except where the procedures used are designed to reduce and control
such incidental catch pursuant to an agreement with the United States.
"2. In those instances where the taking of continental shelf fishery resources
does not result in a substantial catch and such taking does not appear to be
deliberate or repeated, a warning will normally be given. In any event, fisher-
men are expected to return to the sea immediately any continental shelf fishery
resources which may be taken incidentally in the course of directed fisheries
for other species. Fishermen who encounter concentrations of continental shelf
fishery resources in the course of their fishing operations should take immediate
steps to avoid such concentrations in future tows.
"3. To facilitate the transition in fishing procedures required by these proce-
dures, U.S. enforcement officers will act with discretion during a short period
to allow fishermen operating in the region to become familiar with these
procedures.
"4. The boarding and where appropriate the arrest of any vessel pursuant to
these procedures shall be in strict conformity with paragraph 1. above.
"5. The effective date of these now procedures will be December 5. 1974."
These guidelines should substantially enhance our protection efforts and help
conserve our valuable resources. The practical effect of the change in procedure
contemplated by paragraph 1(b) is to require the negotiation of bilateral agree-
ments with all nations fishing over our continental shelf with bottom gear
which can be expected to result in the catch of continental shelf fishery re-
sources. These agreements would set forth appropriate procedures to ensure the
fullest protection of our resources.
I hope that you will conclude, as I have, that this effort will materially assist
in providing added protection to our continental shelf fishery resources.
Sincerely,
JOHN NORTON MOORE,
Chairman. National Security Council Interagency Task Force on the Law
of the Sea and Deputy Special Representative of the President for ti e
Law of the Sea Conference.
STATE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES REGARDING .POLICY
OUTLINED IN MR. MOORE'S LETTER TO SENATOR MAGNUSON
The Secretary of State presents his compliments to Their Excellencies and
Messieurs the Chiefs of Mission of the Governments whose fishermen have been
known to or currently do fish in the waters adjacent to the coasts of the
United States of America, and has the honor to inform the Chiefs of Mission
of new guidelines for the enforcement of the rights of the United States to the
living resources of the continental shelf.
Pursuant to the Convention on the Continental Shelf and international law, the
United States exercises exclusive sovereign rights for the purposes of explora-
tion and exploitation of the living resources of its continental shelf. These rights
have been implemented by domestic legislation.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 :CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
Any vessel taking continental shelf fishery resources of the United States will
be subject to arrest and seizure, except as provided by the United States in
bilateral agreements. For the purpose of determining whether such a taking has
occurred, vessels may ate boarded when engaging in either of the following acts:
(a) fishing with gear which is designed specifically to catch continental
shelf f
ishery resources of the United States, or
(b) fishing with bottom gear (including bottom trawling gear) which
would normally result in the catch of continental shelf fishery resources of
the United States, except where the procedures used are designed to reduce
and control such incidental catch pursuant to an agreement with the Unii:ed
States.
In those instances where the taking of continental shelf fishery resources does
not result in a substantial catch and such taking does not appear to be deliberate
or repeated, a warning will normally be given. In any event, fishermen are
expected to return to the sea Immediately any continental shelf fishery resources
which may be taken incidentally in the course of directed fisheries for other
species. Fishermen who encounter concentrations of continental shelf fishery
resources In the course of their fishing operations should take immediate steps
to avoid such concentrations in future tows.
To facilitate the transition in fishing methods required by these procedures,
United States enforcement officers will act with discretion during a short period
to allow fishermen operating in the region to become familiar with these pro-
cedures.
The boarding and where appropriate the arrest of any vessel pursuant to these
procedures shall be in strict conformity with the above.
The effective date of these new procedures will be December 5, 1974.
The United States Government is prepared to enter into negotiations with any
government for the purpose of establishing procedures designed to reduce and
control the incidental catch of continental shelf fishery resources of the United
States by fishermen using bottom gear (including bottom trawling gear).
The Secretary of State would be grateful if each Chief of Mission would
forward this information to his Government.
Attachment.
Government of Canada.
(iovernnnent of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (in charge of Cuban
Interests).
Government of Denmark.
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Government of the German Democratic Republic.
Government of Finland.
Government of France.
Government of the United Kingdom.
Government of Greece.
Government of Iceland.
Govermnent of Italy.
Government of .Japan.
Government of the Republic of Korea.
Government. of Mexico.
Government c?f Norway.
Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria.
Government of the Polish People's Republic.
Government of Portugal.
Government of Spain.
Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania.
Gnvernlnent of the I?nion of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Government of Venezuela.
CDelan?tlmient of State Press Release, Sept. 12, 19741
,X'1 AV ENFORCE I]TN'r MIEASTTRES FOR PROTE(yrIOPN OF FISIrERY RESOURCES Of Tu]c
V.S. CONTINENTAI, SHELF
Now enforcement measures for the nmortectiou of U.S. continental shelf fisher,'
resources were set (lilt in a September 5 letter from John Norton Moore, the
Chairman of the, National Security Council Interagency Task Force on the Law
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
25
of the Sea, to Senator Warren G. Magnuson, the Chairman of the Senate Com-
merce Committee. The new procedures provide for boarding of vessels fishing
with gear which is designed specifically to catch continental shelf fishery re-
sources of the United States or which is bottom gear (including bottom tending
trawls) which would normally result in the catch of continental shelf fishery
resources of the United States. The procedures will also require agreements with
the U.S. for the protection of U.S. continental shelf fishery resources when such
bottom gear is used. Because of their potential impact on foreign fishing, the
new measures will go into effect only after a 90 day grace period.
The new measure will enable substantially increased protection of U.S. con-
tinental shelf fishery resources against increased foreign fishing pressure, The
new measures are based on recognized legal rights of the United States as set
out in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and do not constitute
a new claim.
Discussion of fishery problems with Senators Magnuson of Washington, Muskie
of Maine, Pell of Rhode Island and Stevens of Alaska has been particularly
helpful in the formulation of the new procedures.
STATEMENT OF HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM
WASHINGTON
Senator MAGNUSOI`T. NIr. Chairman, the Senator from New Jersey
said that we have been pretty generous about this matter of foreign
fishing over the years, and when you talk about waiting, I have been
waiting 14 years to get something done on this. Countries meet and
they meet, and the only thing they resolve at the end, the only thing
they do is resolve to meet someplace else. This has been going on and
on. I have no quarrel with the fact that some of our people try, but I
have had some sad experiences when they have not succeeded. A lot of
problems have been with treaties which have ignored, particularly in
the States of Washington, Oregon, and California, lust as involved in
the 200-mile question as the New England States. I think we have
been patsies sometimes with these people. I really do. I know the Jap-
anese pretty well in regard to fishing. If we were to send a fleet within
200 miles of the shores of Japan, the Diet would meet in 24 hours and
kick us out. That is some reciprocity, is it not? If th,y could meet
earlier, they would.
The same goes for Russian shores. The Russians have been a little
more flexible in their fishing practices off the coasts of Washington and
Oregon. But there are some zones which have constantly been violated,
too, as you point out-destroying gear, all these sort of things. Now,
in the meantime, as has been so well stated here, time is running out
and our .stocks continue to go down, down, down. Off the coasts of
Oregon and California there is hardly any ocean perch left at all. Just
bone, And sure, international cooperation would be the best way. I
know it would. But how long can we wait?
Now, even if they do something-I used to wager with some of the
State Department people a cigar that nothing would happen in Cara-
cas. Oh, give us a little time, they said. So we did. We waited. And
nothing happened. Out of 80 issues, not a single one was resolved.
The Senator from Rhode Island, as we have, has been working on
these things. But I want it clear we are talking only about fish.. I can
understand the real problem of minerals in the seabed, of oil, and other
matters. But we are talking about fish that are disappearing. If there
is any oil in the Continental Slip-If, it will be there, and I guess a year
or two will not platter, although we need it right now.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : 9A-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
'So it seems to me that our problem is one of immediate necessity, and
that involves steps which we did not quite want to take, but I know of
no other answer.
Now, if the committee will look closely at the bill-and I know
you have-we encourage in the bill treaties within the 200-mile limit.
In other words, if we can settle with England, or even in your area,
Air. Chairman, on the question of shrimp within 200 miles, a. treaty
with Brazil, the question of reciprocity, we encourage that and sug-
gest if be done with conservation as the goal. I consider this to be, and
I hope it will remain, an interim me]Lsure. I hope something can hap-
pen at the Conference.
Now, another thing, we are talking about time. We call it the Emer-
gency Marine Fisheries Act. We call it that. In the meantime, of
course, even if the Conference agrees on a treaty or treaties, it is going
to have to go the round of nations. How long will that take? In the
meantime, cur stocks are being depleted. And I can never get excited
about what the Japanese say. I have had too many experiences with
them. Oh. they say maybe they will get out of the North Pacific
Salmon Treaty. Well, the 200 miles has nothing to do with :fishing
salmon beyond the 200-mile limits and we encourage treaties within
the 200-mild, limit. But I say that we have waited too long and been
too generous.
Senator SPARKMAN. Let me ask you--
Senator MAGNUs N. The king crab has been injured by the Japanese.
There, seems to be nothing but :problems with these people. We do rot
fish off their shores, so we are not asking anything from them. if we
can work out treaties. The best example of why we are late is that
about 50 years ago, and no longer, the best fishing in the world was off
the Japanese isla,nos. The best in the world. There are no fish left
because they did not practice conservation, and that is why they are
encroaching on our shores and taking what they can. So I think the
time has come, and [ ask permission to put a further statement in the
record.
Senator SPARK MAN. Without objection, that will be done.
[Senator Magnuson's prepared statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARREN MACNUSON
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today before yoar
committee in the continuing consideration of S. 1988, the "Emergency Marine
Fisheries Protection Act of 1974."
As you know, the Serrate committee has held extensive hearings on this meas-
ure, not only here in Washington, but in fishing communities around the country.
Our hearing records clearly reflect strong support for immediate enactment of
this kind of interim legislation.
Your hearings today serve a vital purpose in that our discussions and delibera-
tions on this measure occurred prior to the ending of the Caracas Law of the
Sea Conference. Many witnesses asked that the Congress not take action until
we could ascer*ain what kind of action might be forthcoming from that world
gathering. Today, you are hearing administration witnesses, many of who-n
appeared before our Committee who can no longer petition for delay until the
Conference could be ended there. Some even expressed hope that there might
be some concrete decisions forthcoming.
On July 11 of this year, when Special Representative of the President and
U.S. Representative to the Law of the Sea Conference Ambassador John It.
Stevenson placed the United States in alliance with those willing to agree to
some kind of 2&0 mile fishery jurisdiction, a major portion of the minority objec-
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/0121 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
tions filed during hearings before the Senate Commerce committee became in-
valid. We have now concluded the Caracas meetings, new and continued discus-
sions are scheduled for 1975 in Geneva, and I am convinced that the fisheries
issue will still be unresolved at that time, though I would join in hope with those
who foresee such agreement.
As these world conferences grind slowly onward, our fishery resource condition
is not static, but rather worsening. Our fishery Treaties are not providing re-
source protection, and the various Executive Agreements, also ineffective to the
need, were never intended to be more than "stopgap" arrangements until some
kind of world order could be established.
The foreign fishing efforts of today are too intensive and the decimation of
further stocks is at hand. The harvest is current taking a valuable protein source
which is infinitely renewable when properly managed, and leaving a path of
destruction. S. 1988 is interim legislation, it would cease to function on the date
of the Law of the Sea Treaty, or other. comprehensive treaty with respect to
fishery jurisdiction, takes force or is provisionally applied.
In closing, I urge that your committee join with ours in reporting S. 1988
favorably. It is no longer a simple matter of protecting our fishermen and their
industry, it is a question of the fate of our adjacent fishery resources themselves.
AGREEMENT ON TUNA
Senator MAGNUSON. Another thing is that we have a loose tuna
treaty in the Pacific. It is not enforced very well. Some of the tuna
people say that the Mexicans will establish a 200-mile limit on tuna
if we enact this bill. Well, somebody better put some limits someplace.
The Mexicans and the United States could make an agreement, just
as easy as not, on tuna. Tuna is also rapidly disappearing in the Pacific,
and this is what happened in the Atlantic. It is coming back a little bit
but not very much.
REPEAL OF S. 1988 IF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT WORKED OUT
So I just think we have to do what this bill says. It is an Emergency
Fish Protection Act, and I will be the first one to ask for its repeal if
and when the Conference can work something out.
COMMENTS ON S. 3 7 8 3
Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if our colleagues are in a
position to comment on the bill introduced by our chairman, Senator
Fulbright, S. 3783? This bill which was introduced in July of this
year, expresses the same purpose as this bill but sets forth a somewhat
different approach to it based upon the existing convention.
Senator MAGNUSON. The Senator from Alaska directed himself to
that here earlier.
Senator CASE. I am sorry.
Senator MAGNUSON. But I think it should be made clear.
Senator STEVENS. In my statement, I pointed out that that bill would
implement section 7 of the 1958 agreement, and the impact would
be negligible because of the fact that neither Russia nor Japan were
parties to that Convention. We are speaking specifibally of article 7
of the 1958 Convention on Fishing and Conservation and Living Re-
sources of the High Seas. Because the two principal offenders at
the present time are not parties to that convention, if we were to im-
plement that, we would be taking unilateral action against them any-
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
y. Article he+s some req-Arement for procedures which in effect
a ;o di latorv in and of themselves.
Senator CASE. It does provide for a 6-month period in which efforts
,ire made t.o negotiate.
Senator 1IAuNrsoN. Yes, that is one thing we are concerned with.
One other thing. Communist China, the People's Republic of China.,
is starting to build a big fishing fleet, and we are going to have some
trouble, with them unless we do this. I think they might be more
susceptible to a treaty within a treaty with us. In addition, the Koreans
are starting fishing, South Korea. You know what with? Boats that
we gave them. How can you stand up in front of fishermen who can-
not, find fish and answer that question? The North Koreans will get
in the act pretty soon up in your waters as sure as I am sitting here.
And let me tell you one other thing. The nations on the border, the
bulge off Africa, which is a great fishing ground, have put restric-
tions extending sometimes 200 miles off their shores. So the other
coiuaf,ries say, "You nations are not fishing that, fishing ground at
all. Why can't we fish it?" "hell, you can't fish it and leave the fish
alone,. We may want to fish some clay, so don't take it away." As I
pointed out, 200 miles is a difficult step, but we are not talking about
navigation, we are not talking about minerals-we are talking about
fish. And that-, is why I think: the time for the bill has come. I think
it will give the State Department a negotiating tool.
Senator SPARKMAN. Let me ask ;you this question. What you are
seeking to do is virtually the same thing as has already been declared
by some of our South American friends.
Senator MAGNUSON. No.
Senator SPARK AN. They have 200 miles?
Senator MAGNUBON. No, not necessarily. We have an interim
measure, and we will allow a, treaty within a treaty for foreign fishing.
Senator SPARKMAN. I realize you said that.
Senator STEVENS. We go a little different direction. They asserted
a territorial sea of 200 miles.
Senator:MAGNtTsoN. The whole business.
Senator STEVENS. Jurisdiction. We are asserting beyond the 12-
mile contiguous zone a conservation and economic zone wvithi:a which
we seep to regulate the taking of fish, and in which we declare that, we
have a. primary interest in their preservation. But we are not seeking
an exclusive zone in this bill, nor are we asserting that the total juris-
diction of tlie T7nited States in the territorial sea concept extend out to
200 miles. This is an interpressure.
1 personally believe the Law of the Sea Conference will go further
than this measure before it is througl iL.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE GRAVEL, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator ('TRAVEL.. If the chairman is looking for precedents, there is
one When the dla'nhattan voyage was undertaken in the Northwest
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 2FMIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
Passage where Canada unilaterally exercised an environmental zone,
and for obvious reasons, so there could be some degree of management,
since it would impact upon their shores.
MANAGEMENT FOR WORLD FISHERIES SOUGHT
What we are seeking to do with this 200-mile limit is to provide
some management for world fisheries, which is presently a situation of
anarchy. We have made efforts with respect to a treaty. We all recog-
nize these treaties did not work and the only way to handle it, of
course, is to bring some order at least around the coastline that affect
our country now. The rest of the world has not quite matured to
that point of view yet, and I think we would be derelict-totally
derelict-in our duty in not doing it. The arguments primarily made
are that we do it in our own self-interest. That is very accurate and
very true and we should have brains enough to do it for that reason,
but I would submit, and I would hope, the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee has broad scope and acumen to realize we are not only doing it
for our selfish American interest, we are doing it for the world.
EXAMPLE OF POLLOCK
Let us take the classic example of pollock. We do not fish pollock
off Alaska but they are fished. Under this proposal we would have 200
miles and we would work out a treaty that let people come in and
fish pollock. We will not be acting like the people off the bulge of
Africa. We are concerned about feeding the world, we are con-
cerned about the protein content of the diet of other people. But if we
acquiesce in the situation that presently exists, the world will just go
on a rampage and there will be no protein from fish in future decades
because of the lack of maturity that has been exercised in the deple-
tion of these resources.
REGENERATIrON OF ALASKAN FISIERIES
Now if I could only underscore one facet that affects Alaska. I think
it is absolutely ridiculous; we have had our fisheries wiped out. It is
going to be a good deal worse. We have intelligent State programs,
sound programs to regenerate our fisheries, but it makes little sense
to generate our fisheries or spend the money if it is turned around and
they are fished out of hand. The money is going down the tube. We
would be. prepared obviously, to undertake some rehabilitation pro-
grams of great note, and so would the entire Nation, if we could have
some timbrella that would protect these regenerative programs, and
that would be a 200-mile limit. And I would disagree with those pro-
ponents who say the 200-mile limit would be an incursion, unilateral
incursion, into the possibility of an agreement on an international
level. I think it would be just the opposite. I think we are the most
mature Nation-I say this most humbly-Nation in the world and if
we can lead the way, as we have in the areas of ecology and environ-
ment, if we can now show some degree of economic management, other
nations would emulate our example, and I think it would bring
pressure for an agreement, and not delay it.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
30
ACTIONS PROPOSED FOR 1'OREIGPI RELATIONS COMMIT,rm,
So I would hope the Foreign Relations Committee would ac,.`,` : one,
on motivation, at least have the good sense to protect our selfish inter-
ests, and two, to have the good sense to act as a world leader, a respon-
sibility we have had thrust upon us by circumstances, to brin?, some
management to at least the fisheries within our boundaries, and to the
economic interests within our boundaries. I would like to add my word
to my colleagues and ask that my statement be placed in the record.
Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Gravel.
[Senator Gravel's prepared statement follows:]
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify on this measure.
The bill wh:.ch this committee is considering today has great significance to
my home state. The largest segment of the Alaskan labor force is employed in
the fishing industry. Until the recent advent of oil development within the State,
fishing was the major industry. Today, while it still remains a major industry,
its importance is diminishing. It is only sensible, in this time of non-renewable
resource extraction, to concentrate some of our efforts on preserving renewable
.resources.
I was greatly dismayed, as were many Alaskans, to learn that the Third Law
of the Sea Conference had adjourned. without resolution of the fisheries problem.
It was indeed a heartening time when Ambassador Stevenson announced the
U.S. position regarding fisheries jurisdiction. Although this position was condi-
tional upon a comprehensive package resolving the other issues faced by the
conferees, it was a position that could be embraced by all our coastal fishing
Interests.
l adhere to the premise that this measure could be handled by international
agreement. I have had difficulty in balancing the international implications of
unilateral actin with the overriding need to protect our living marine resources.
Only through raulti-lateral action could we be assured there would be no inter-
national friction. But international negotiations have failed.
since this measure and similar measures were introduced in the Senate,
we have been told to await the outcome of International negotiation.. The
Nixon Administration, which prided itself on forging international accords,
has failed to elect agreement in this area. Similarly. this International confer=
cake that was to be the bulwark of protection for these resources has also
failed. To dela" enactment of this measure further, only sanctions the rapacious
netions in marine resource harvesting. The time is ripe to curtail the over-
exploitation of these resources.
'i lo' situation facing Alaska's commerci,i.l fisheries is grave, at best. Last
November. the U.S. delegation to the International North Pacific Fisheries Corn-
mission meeting were totally frustrated in attempting to get the Japanese to
refrain from the high seas harvesting of salmon. The valuable Bristcl Bay
salmon fishery has been seriously depleted by this Japanese fishing effort. In
1)eceniber, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game announced it was no
longer able to carry out its constitutional mandate to manage the Bristol Bay
fishery.
In May of this year, the governor of Alaska, In the face of an expected
catastrophe, declared Bristol Bay to be a state disaster area. This was followed
in June by a similar declaration from the Federal Government. Massive aid was
mobilized, as the residents of this area rely mainly on commercial fishing.
Few fishermen even bothered to put. their vessels into the water. Alternative
sources of livelihood for these people had to be found.
As if this sit ration ii-re not serious enough, on June 14 the U.S. Coast Guard
seized a Japanese gill-netter for fishing in violation of the International Con-
vention for the High Seas Fishery of the North Pacific. Again, on July 1, the
Coast Guard seized another Japanese gill-r~etter for a similar violation. This
appalling behavior further underscores the need for some action on this issue.
As the Commerce Committee report on this measure points out, the inroads
or foreign fleets on American coastal fisheries is destroying this valuable ra-
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/0781CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
source. Further delay is encouragement for these foreign fleets to take what
they can get, as soon as possible. A workable International pact is years away;
our coastal fisheries cannot tolerate further exploitation.
Thank you.
Senator PILL. Seeing both the chairman and a member of the Com-
merce Committee here makes me think of another way that American
fishermen could be helped. Has the Commerce Committee ever con-
sidered the repeal of the law that's been on the books for some time
which requires that American fish can only be landed in America from
fishing vessels built in America. In my part of the country our fisher-
men could buy their vessels in Nova Scotia and it would cost them
about half of their original capitalization. One of the problems we
face in competing is the other nations are subsidizing. the fishermen,
giving them all kinds of government help, and our fishermen are re-
ceiving very little help. They have to operate out of very old boats
and are not receiving the support from our. Government they should.
Senato,r STEVENS. We did pass a bill-again our chairman was the
leader in this-to permit the American fisherman to escrow the Fed-
eral Government in taxes in order to modernize and replace his ves-
sels, and that is working very well up in Alaska.
Senator MAGNTJSON. And a loan program.
Senator STEVENS. Given time, that plus the improved loan program
would have the same effect.
One of our problems about those foreign fishing vessels is once you
get them you have to get spare parts and you can be entirely at the
mercy of a foreign builder.
Let me mention one last thing. You are going to hear, I think, that
the 200-mile zone will not protect our fish, that many of our fish go
beyond the 200 miles, particularly our Alaska salmon and halibut.
Take Japan, for instance. Japan consumes more fish than any nation
in the world. Only 2 percent of their salmon is caught on the high
seas but some 40 percent of the fish that they do 'consume is caught
within the 200-mile zone. We think the leverage we would have over
the 40 percent will give us the ability to protect the 2 percent they
are taking outside of the 200-mile zone, and that by the leverage
that would come from this bill we can protect the east and west coasts
as far as the fish go beyond the 200-mile zone. It is not a completely
protective measure as far as all American fish species are concerned,
I think that is acknowledged. I personally would like to go to the
Continental Shelf. Sixty-five percent of the Continental Shelf is off
Alaska and certainly this bill will not protect all of the Continental
Shelf. But this bill is better than nothing, and it would give us again
the leverage we need to protect the fishing stocks that go beyond the
200-mile zone.
Senator MAGNUSON. The Japanese even want to catch whales be-
cause they say they have to survive on whale meat. That is how far
they go or attempt to go. They say they need whale meat to eat.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
32
OYSTERS AND SIHRIMl' FROM ALABAMA
Senator S)PARKMAN. Senator Magnuson, you mentioned the very
fine shrimp we produce down our way. Won't you include oysters too,
the best oysters in the country? In your testimony you made reference
to shrimp----
Senator MAGNUSON. Yes, sir.
Senator 'SPA~RKMAK [continuing]. That come from down in :my
State, will you not include the oysters too, the best in the country'?
Senator VIAONUsON. Sure. I did not know about the oysters.
[Laughter.]
Senator SPARIiMnN. I want to be sure you did know.
Senator MAGNTUSON. I'm for the oysters.
Senator SPARIKMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Our next witness is Mr. John R. Stevenson, Special Representative
to the President for the Law of the Sea Conference.
Mr. John Norton Moore, Chairman, NSC Interagency Task Force
on the Law of the Sea and Deputy Special Representative of the Pres-
ident for th(, Law of the Sea Conference.
And Mr. Carlyle E. Maw, Under Secretary of State for Security
.A ssistance.
If you gentlemen will take your seats at the table.
STATEMENT OF CARLYLE E. MAW, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR SECURITY ASSISTANCE
Mr. MAW. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, .[ appreciate the opportunity to appear
before this committee to testify on S. 1988. The Department of State
attaches great importance to the successful conclusion of a compre-
hensive Oceans Law Treaty, and we are concerned that unilateral ac-
tion at, this time. would seriously damage the chances for agreement.
S. 1:)88, as amended, has major implications for the foreign re-
Ietions of the Nation. The administration strongly supports the effort
to conclude 3, timely Oceans Law Treaty within the Third United Na-
tions Conference oil the Law of the Sea. It is in the interest of all
nations that such a comprehensive treaty be concluded. The testimony
thus far today underscores that, importance.
The great potential of the world's oceans can only be fully realised
with the stability which accompanies broadly based agreement on their
legal regime. And without such an agreement, their great potential
for heacefu- development may be overshadowed by the potential =ror
conflict.
It, is particularly important that during the final stages of the Law
of the Sea Conference all nations should refrain from new ocean
claims which could irreparably damage the delicate fabric of the
negotiation. Passage of S. 1988 or similar legislation unilaterally ex-
teendinv the fisheries jurisdiction of the United States would ba seri.-
onsly dama.2ing to the negotiations as well as more broadly to the
overall oceans and foreign relations interests of the United States.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 -~IA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
We strongly oppose the passage of this or similar legislation at this
time.
Mr. Chairman, Ambassador John R. Stevenson, the special repre-
sentative of the President for the Law of the Sea Conference, will
report on the progress made at the Caracas session of the Third
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Prof. John Norton
Moore, the Chairman of the National Security Council Interagency
Task Force on the Law of the Sea and deputy special representative
of the President, will then give the executive branch views on S. 1988.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stevenson.
STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR JOHN R. STEVENSON, SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRESIDENT FOR THE LAW OF THE
SEA CONFERENCE
Mr. STEVENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a statement which I would like to submit for the record.
Senator SPARKMTAN. That will be printed in full in the record.
Mr. STEVENSON. And I would just like to touch on some of the
highlights, if I may.
Senator SPARKMAN. Very well.
Mr. STEVENSON. In the first place, let me say I do appreciate the
opportunity to appear and report on this first substantive session of
the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea.
May I also say that the members of the delegation, and myself,
particularly appreciated the attendance of Senators Case, Muskie,
and Poll of this committee and members of their staff and the com-
mittee's staff.
Senator CASE. You meant to say Stevens, too?
Mr. STEVENSON. Yes, of course. We also appreciated having Sena-
tors Stevens and Buckley representing other Senate committees with
us. We have consistently appreciated the advice and assistance of this
committee in helping us to achieve a legal regime for two-thirds to
three-quarters of the world. We hope we will continue to have the
close cooperation of the Congress and this committee in achieving
a treaty which fully protects basic U.S. interests.
Turning to the results of last summer, clearly the results were
obviously not all many of us had hoped for in advance. On the other
hand, the session was certainly not a failure.
I think perhaps the most significant result was the expressed or im-
plicit agreement of most nations that participated that their interests
would be best, served by an acceptable and timely treaty. Now partic-
ularly, in view of some of the comments that were made earlier in this
session, I want to say that the U.S. delegation at all times indicated
that our concept of a timely treaty was a treaty that is completed not
later than 1975, and that we were particularly gratified that the con-
ference did decide, despite a number of logistic and other problems, to
call for the next session to begin in the spring, thus leaving additional
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
34
time, if necessary later on, to complete, the treaty, and that they also
indicated tha, the sitrning of the treaty should take place in Caracas,
again on the assumption that we can make a maximum effort and
reach agreement next, year.
I think a .second indication of the widespread support for and a
prompt international solution was the adoption by consensus of rules
of procedures, including a number of new types of procedures designed
to promote widespread agreement.
In the, third place, I think the tone of the general debate and the
informal meetin' .,?s was moderate and serious with only a handful of
nations resorting to polemics.
Furthermore, in the general debate there, was a clear indication of
the. broad lines of agreement which would be generally acceptable.
h'inally, M:r. Chairman, unlike some of the earlier meetings of the
Seabed Committee, I think there is no question that the delegations
1'rorn all countries worked very hard. There were three or four simu'.-
taneous meetings every day and a number of night sessions, and I
think there was very little atte:nipt. at procedural or other delay in
dealing with the difficult problems with which we have to cope.
Other results of the conference, to which I would like to refer, were
the very broad support for a 12-mile territorial sea with an economic
zone extending to 200 miles. Upward of 100 countries expressly er,-
dorsed this combination, which the Chairman of the Second Com-
mittee in. his final statement, which was endorsed by that committee,
and circulated as a Conference document, stated was the keystone of
the compromise solution favored by the majority of the states par-
ticipating in the Conference.
Now, of course, this summer marked. the first time that the United
States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union all expressly agreed
to accept as t:"e basis for general settlement the 12-mile territorial sea
coinhined with the 200-mile limit for the economic zone as part of an
overall treaty package, including provisions for unimpeded transit cf
international straits and a balance between coastal State rights and
dirties within this economic zone.
TREATY ARTICLES DEALING WITH ZONE FISHING AND CONTINENTAL
SHELF
Furthermore, to promote negotiations on the essential balance of
coastal state rights and duties within this 200-mile economic zone, the
United States submitted detailed treaty articles dealing with the eco-
nomic fishing, and the Continental Shelf.
I will not relate the. substance of those provisions. They are in-
cluded in my Formal statement.
But. I would like to say that with respect to fisheries they do provide
for exclusive coastal state rights within the 200-mile zone, with re-
spect to coastal and :unadromous species subject to a duty to conserve
and to insure full utilization. There is a prohibition on fishing for
Salmon beyond a 12-mile territorial sea without the consent of the
State of origin. Highly migratory fish, such as tuna, would be regu-
lated within the 200-mile zone by the coastal state, and outside by
the flag state, in both cases in accordance with international regula-
tions.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 -QIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
Moreover, because of the particular interest in coastal states within
whose economic zone highly migratory fish are caught, these articles
indicate that a fee would be paid to the coastal state in respect of
such catches, and that special interest of the coastal state in fish
caught within their zone would be taken into account in allocation
provisions.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the submission of these draft articles
indicated to a number of the other countries our seriousness of pur-
pose in embracing the 200-mile economic zone concept.
We were somewhat disappointed that a number of countries have
in some respects strengthened their own views of an economic zone, to
provide not only for coastal state control or resources, but also com-
plete control over pollution and scientific research.
They have also been very opposed to any international limitation,
such as the full utilization principle with respect to fish, on coastal
state jurisdiction within the zone.
However, Mr. Chairman, we certainly have entered the stage of
detailed negotiation with respect to the character of this economic zone
with very general acceptance that this plus the 12-mile territorial sea
and the other elements, such as transit through straits of an overall
acceptable package.
On the technical side, for the first time, following this session, we
will have draft treaty articles which will present to governments the
options that they really have to consider within the very general lines
of agreement that now seem apparent. Because for the first time the
large number of traditional law of the sea issues, with which the Sec-
ond Committee of the conference has been dealing, namely, the terri-
torial sea economic zone straits fisheries, and the Continental Shelf,
which up to now have been represented only by a large disorganized
number of proposals of specific states, have now been reduced to a
limited number of working papers in which the precise treaty alterna-
tives are presented.
So now for the first time the Conference has a basic treaty text to
work from in which the specific alternatives are presented.
INTEGRATION INTO CONFERENCE OF COUNTRIES NOT PREVIOUSLY
PARTICIPATING
Another result this summer was the very successful integration into
the work of the Conference of'the countries which had previously not
participated in the work of the preparatory committee. The prepara-
tory committee at the end constituted 90 countries. We had almost 150,
including many newly independent countries, at Caracas this summer,
and I think the process of integrating them into the work of the Con-
ference was achieved with a minimum of delay.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
36
With respect- to the deep seabed, particularly the question of the
mining, of nu.nganes3 nodules in this area beyond national jurisdic-
tion, for the production of nickel, copper, cobalt, and some other
metals, the first step toward real negotiation on the critical question
of a system of exploitation and the conditions of exploitation were
undertaken. However, it is only fair to say that it is in this area that
the sharpest. difference between the position of the United States and
that of most other countries remain.
The difference very simply is essentially a difference as to the degree
Of discretion that an international authority should have over access
to these resources by nations and their nationals, and in the regulation
of the exploitation of these resources.
MOVEMENT AWAY FROM TRADITIONAL REGIONAL AND POLITICAL
ALINEMENTS
Another result this summer was a gradual movement away from
the traditional regional and political alinements toward more informal
groups with similarities of interest on a particular issue.
Thus, for example, during the latter half of the Conference, a group
of countries, including the United States, particularly interested in
impartial compulsory dispute settlement, met together under the, co-
chairmen of El Salvador and Australia, and on the last day of the
session introduced a working paper cosponsored by eight countries
from different regions presenting alternative draft treaty articles on
all the critical issues in this dispute settlement area.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I must refer to the number and tempo of
private meeting bete teen delegations which increased very markedly
this summer and, of course, moved beyond formal and public positions.
LAC',A JJJ" POLITICAL WILL 'r0 .YIAKE HARD NFGO'r1A'I'ING CIIOICE4
Now, what was the principal shortcomings of Caracas? I think it is
entirely clear it was the lack of sufficient political will to make bard
negotiating choices ou a limited number of critical issues.
Why was this so?
In the first place, there was a very general conviction that that was
not the last session and it was too early to make the necessary
accommodations.
I think it was partially in reaction to this, Mr. Chairman, that there
was a very strong feeling that only one session should be formally
scheduled for next year in the expectation that governments will make
those decisions at this first session and only move on to another ses-
sion, if necessary, for final cleanup work.
i1I1FE CE OF IJE''I'AILED TREATY TEXT PRIOR TO SESSIONS COMPLETION
Second, governments were clearly handicapped by the absence prior
to the completion of last summer's session of detailed treaty text,
presenting the alternatives on the critical issues.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 :glA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
NECESSITY FOR PROMPT INTERNATIONAL SOLUTION
Mr. Chairman, returning to the discussion earlier in this meeting,
I do want to say how conscious all of the members of our delegation
are of the necessity for a prompt international solution to the problem
of the oceans, and particularly the pressing problems of fisheries.
ACHIEVING TREATY BY 1975
However, I do disagree that this is something that can only be
achieved in the very distant future. I think a comprehensive treaty is
obtainable within the United Nations time schedule calling for the
completion of a treaty in 1975.
However, to achieve this result governments must make the hard
political decisions necessary to resolve the small number of critical
issues. We must move from the technical drafting and preliminary
exchange of views, which was completed at Caracas, and where both
the general outlines of agreement as well as the details of the remain-
ing disagreements were rather starkly revealed, to the highest political
levels, and in this I agree completely with Senator Case's judgment
that frequently this must involve the heads of states themselves, if we
are to make the accommodations on the critical issues that are neces-
sary to achieve general agreement.
Moreover, we must do this promptly in the intersessional period
between now and Geneva so that when the conference reconvenes in
March, from the first day serious negotiations can begin among dele-
gations that have been instructed in such a manner that a successful
negotiation can take place.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say again that a multilateral conven-
tion, which is clearly of unparalleled complexity and importance to
our vital economic, strategic, and other interests, is within our reach.
I would certainly be the last one to deny that the international law-
making process is a tedious, frequently frustrating, and very difficult
enterprise. By the same token, it is the only way of achieving a gen-
erally acceptable agreement which will avoid conflict, and clearly the
desirability of this international solution seems to be common ground.
I do hope that in the year ahead we can get the necessary decisions
from governments to complete the convention, and we certainly hope
that we will continue to have the guidance and support of the Con-
gress and of this committee in striving to the utmost to make 1975
the year when this treaty is completed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.
[Mr. Stevenson's prepared statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR JOHN R. STEVENSON
Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to appear before the Senate For-
eign Relations Committee to report on the progress made at the first substan-
tive session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea
held in Caracas, Venezuela, from June 20 to August 29, 1974.
Before proceeding with this report, I would like to say how much w appreci-
ated the attendance at the Conference of three members of this Ce ommittee,
Senators Clifford Case, Edmund Muskie, and Claiborne Pell, as well as members
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/073gCIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
of their and the Committee's staffs. We are deeply grateful for their willirrgrre>s
to attend the conference and for the advice and assistance that they and other
members of the Committee have given to our efforts to achieve an agreed con-
s;titution and supporting legal regime for two-thirds of this planet. It hay been
and will remain a fundamental part of our policy to work closely with the
Congress and this Committee to achieve a Law of the Sea Treaty that fully
protects the basic interests of the United States.
I want to emphasize at the outset that, while the results of the Caracas session
sere not all we hoped for, the session was not a failure.
A most significant result was the apparent agreement of most nations rep-
resented there that the interests of all will be best served by an acceptable and
iimely treaty.
To that end, the Conference has scheduled not only the next session in the
spring in Geneva, but a return to Caracas for the signing of this agreement in the
expectation that this will take place in accordance with the United Nation: time-
table. That timetable provides for conclusion of the treaty in 1975.
Further evidence of this desire to achieve promptly a widely acceptable treaty
was reflected in the adoption by consensus of the rules of procedure early in the
session. These :_?ules make several changes in normal procedures that are designed
to promote widespread agreement.
The tone of the general debate and the informal meetings was moderate and
serious and relected wide agreement on the broad outlines of a comprehensive
general agreement.
Finally, I am sure the members of the Senate who were with us will agree that
the i)eiegates from all regions worked hard. Three or four simultaneous: meet-
ings were common and there were some night sessions. The number of papers
worked on was enormous, but this time the object-largely achieved-was or-
ganizing and reducing the alternatives, not proliferating them.
Other :accomplishments of the session were considerable. Among the most
important are the following:
(a) The vast array of critical law of the sea issues and proposals within the
mandate of Committee II-including among; others the territorial sea, econonlic
zone, straits. fisheries :rnd the continental margin-was organized by the Conr-
nrittee into a comprehensive set of working papers containing precise treaty
texts reflecting main trends on each precise issue. All states can now focus on
each issue, and the alternative solutions, with relative ease.
A similar development occurred with respect to marine scientific rese.r.rch is
committee IP.. Committee I, dealing with the novel subject of a. legal regime
for exploiting the deep seabed, had previously agreed to alternative treaty texts
in the preparatory Committee and further refined these texts at the Caracas
session.
(7)) The transition from a preparatory Committee of about l)0 to a Conference
of almost 150, iac?.ludij,g many newly independent states, was achieved :without
major new stumbling blocks and a minimum of delay.
(r) The inclusion in the treaty of a 1`i-mi!e territorial sea and a 200-n.1le
economic zone was all but formally agreed, subject of course to acceptable reso-
lution of other issues. including unimpeded transit of straits. Accordingly. ex-
pamided co?rstal state urisdietion over living and non-living resources nppears
a-;sured as part of the comprehensive treaty.
(d) With respect to the deep seabeds, the first steps have been taken into
real negotiation of the basic questions of the system of exploitation and the
conditions of exploitation.
ici 't'raditional regional and political alignments of states are being replaced
be informal groups w nose membership is based on similarities of interest o:i a
particular issue. This has greatly facilitated clarification of issues and is neces-
r=tr for finding effective accommodations.
(f) The utm;ber and tempo of private meetings has increased considerably
and moved beyond formal positions. This is essential to a successful negotiation.
Of course, by their very nature, the results of such meetings cannot be discussed
publicly.
With few exceptions, the Conference papers now make it clear what the strrrc-
t.are and general content of the Treaty will be. The alternatives to choo,~e from,
and the blanks to be filled in, and even the relative importance attached. to
different issues,. are well known.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/073PCIA-RDP75BOO38OR0005004l0003-3
What was missing in Caracas was sufficient political will to make hard nego-
tiating choices. A principal reason for this was the conviction that this would
not be the last session. The absence prior to the completion of this session of
organized alternate treaty texts on many issues also inhibited such decision
making.
The next step is for Governments to make the political decisions necessary
to resolve a small number of critical issues. In short, we must now move from
the technical drafting and preliminary exploratory exchanges of views at this
just completed session, which has laid bare both the outlines of agreement and
the details of disagreement, to the highest political levels, involving heads of
states themselves, to make accommodation on these critical issues possible.
The fundamental problem is that most states believe the major decisions
must be put together in a single package. Every state has different priorities,
and agreement on one issue is frequently conditioned on agreement on another.
Thus, it might have been possible--and might have been helpful to the Executive
Branch in its efforts here today-to adopt a general declaration of principles in
Caracas endorsing, among other things, a 12-mile territorial sea and a 200-mile
economic zone. Our Delegation opposed such an idea, because it would have
diverted us from negotiating the key details of an economic zone that can spell
the difference between true agreement and the mere appearance of agreement,
and because our willingness to support such concepts is also conditioned on
satisfactory resolution of other issues, including unimpeded passage of straits.
In choosing to concentrate on precise texts and alternatives, our Delegation
believed we were in fact best promoting widespread agreement on schedule.
However, we recognized that the absence of tangible symbols of agreement would
place as in a politically difficult situation between sessions.
In his closing statement before the Caracas session, the President of the Con-
ference, recognizing the problem, stated, "we should restrain ourselves in the
face of the temptation to take unilateral action", and then urged states to pre-
pare to reach agreement "without delay" since governments cannot be expected
to exercise "infinite patience."
We regret that for a variety of reasons the Conference was unable to capitalize
upon the initial, prevailing good will to produce a final treaty at the Caracas
session. Nevertheless, the political parameters of an overall agreement were
made much clearer at Caracas and we are at the stage were differences in ap-
proaehes are embodied in specific treaty articles expressed as alternative formu-
lations on almost all the major issues.
On July 11 at a Plenary session, we noted there was a growing consensus on
the limits of national jurisdiction, which we expressed in the following terms :
"A maximum outer limit of 12 miles for the territorial sea and of 200 miles for
the economic zone ... conditioned on a satisfactory overall treaty package and,
more specifically, on provisions for unimpeded transit of international straits
and a balance between coastal state rights and duties within the economic
zone." To promote negotiations on the essential balance of coastal state rights
and duties the United States submitted draft articles proposing the establish-
ment of a 200-mile economic zone in the treaty. The U.S. draft articles consist
of three sections : the economic zone, fishing, and the continental shelf.
The economic zone section provides for a 200-mile outer limit with coastal
state sovereign and exclusive rights over resources, exclusive rights over drill-
ing and economic installations, and other rights and duties regarding scientific
research and pollution to be specified. There would be coastal state environ-
mental duties with respect to installations and seabed activities. All states would
enjoy freedom of navigation and. other rights recognized by international law
within the economic zone.
The fishing section gives the coastal state exclusive rights for the purpose of
regulating fishing in the 200-toile economic zone, subject to a duty to conserve and
to ensure full utilization of fishery stocks taking into account environmental and
economic factors. In substance, there is no significant difference between the
objectives of S. 1988 and the United States proposal at the Conference. Fishing
for anadromous species such as salmon beyond the 12-mile territorial sea would
be prohibited except as authorized by the host state. Highly migratory species
such as tuna would be regulated by the coastal state in the zone and by the flag
state outside the zone, in both cases in accordance with regulations established
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75BOO38OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 :49IA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
by appropriate international or regional organizations. Membership in the or-
ganization would be mandatory and the coastal state would receive reasonable
fees for the highly migratory fish caught in its zone by foreign vessels. The
international organization in establishing c;quitable allocation regulations, would
be obligated to ensure full utilization of the resource and to take into account
the special interests of the coastaa states within whose economic zones highly
migratory fish are caught.
The continental shelf section provides for coastal state sovereign rights over
exploration and exploitation of continental shelf resources. The continental shelf
is defined as extending to the limit of the t conomic zone or beyond to a precisely
defined outer limit of the continental margin. The coastal state would have a
duty to rest e t the integrity of foreign investment on the shelf and to make pay-
ments from mineral resource exploitation for international community purposes,
particularly for the economic benefit of developing countries. In our plenary
statement we suggested that these payments should be at a modest and uniform
rite. The revenue sharing area would begin seaward of 12 miles or 200 me,ers
wal er depth, whichever is further seaward.
The draft articles on the economic zone place the United States in the main-
stream of the prewlominant trends in the Conference, and we were pleased with
the favorable reaction to our proposal. W' were disappointed, however, at the
support, particularly among a number of African countries, for an economic
zone in which there would be plenary, coastal state jurisdiction, not only over
resources, hot; over scientific research and vessel-source pollution as well and in
all of these areas there would be no international standards except provisions for
freedom of navigation and overflight and the right to lay submarine cables and
pipelines. Many of the same countries are saying that if a pattern of unilateral
action by individual countries emerges before a treaty is agreed, they would go
further and opt for a full 200-mile territorial sea.
We believe that specifying the rights and duties of both coastal states and other
states in the economic zone is the approach best designed to avoid the sterile
debate over aostract concepts.
At the final meeting of the Second Committee on August 28, the Chairman,
Ambassador Andres Aguilar of Venezuela, made a constructive and challenging
statement summing up its work. On its own initiative, the Committee decided to
have the statement circulated as .an official Committee document. This occurred
after initial opposition by the 200-mile territorial sea supporters, which was
withdrawn ir.. the face of other Delegations' willingness to proceed to a vote
if necessary. Because of its great importance and the universal respect and
admiration earned by Chairman Aguilar for his strong and effective leadership,
I would like to quote briefly from that statement.
"No decision on substantive issues has been taken at this session, nor has a
single Article of the future Convention been adopted, but the States represented
here know perfectly well which are at this time the positions that enjoy support
and which are the ones that have not managed to make any headway.
"The paper that sums up the main trends does not pronounce on the degree of
support which each of them had enlisted at the preparatory meetings and the
Conference itself, but it is now easy for anyone who has followed our work
closely to discern the outline of the future Convention.
"So far each State has put forward in general terms the position which would
ideally satisfy its own range of interests in the seas and oceans. Once these
positions are established, we have before us the opportunity of negotiating
based on an objective and realistic evaluation of the relative strength of the
different opinions.
"It is not my intention in this statement to present a complete picture of the
situation as it see it ?personally, but I can offer some general evaluations and
comments.
"The idea of a territorial sea of 12 miles and an exclusive economic zone
beyond the territorial sea up to a total maximum distance of 200 miles is. at
least at this time, the keystone of the compromise solution favoured by the
majority of the States participating in the Conference, as is apparent from
the General debate in the Plenary meetings and the discussions held in our
Committee.
"Accentancs of this idea is, of course, dependent on the satisfactory solution
of other issues, especially the issue of passage through straits used for inter-
national navigation, the outermost limit of the continental shelf and the actual
retention of this concept and, last but not least, the aspirations of the land-
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
41
locked countries and other countries which, for one reason or another, con-
sider themselves geographically disadvantaged.
"There are, in addition, other problems to be studied and solved in con-
nection with this idea, for example, those relating to archipelagos and the
regime of islands in general.
"It is also necessary to go further into the matter of the nature and charac-
teristics of the concept of the exclusive economic zone, a subject on which im-
portant differences of opinion still persist.
"On all these subjects substantial progress has been made which lays the
foundations for negotiation during the intersessional period and at the next
session of the Conference."
Mr. Chairman, perhaps the most marked differences between the position of-
the United States and that of a majority of other states at the Conference
emerged in the First Committee, which deals principally with the mining of
manganese nodules in the deep seabed for the production of nickel, copper,,
cobalt and perhaps certain other metals. The basic differences relate to who will
exploit the deep seabed resources and how this exploitation will take place. The
United States took the position that access to the resources should be guaranteed
on a non-discriminatory basis under reasonable conditions that provide the secu-
rity of expectations needed to attract the investment for development of the
resources. This would generate international revenues to be used for interna-
tional community purposes, particularly for developing countries. A number of
developing countries have supported a concept under which the international
seabed authority would itself undertake exploration and exploitation, and which,.
under the new formula introduced by the developing countries at Caracus, would
in addition have discretion to contract with States and private companies to
operate under its direct and effective control and under basic conditions of ex-
ploitation set forth in the Convention itself.
During the last few -,weeks of the Conference real negotiations began on the
basic conditions for exploitation when the First Committee agreed to establish
a small, informal negotiating group. This group will resume its work at the next
session of the Conference and we hope that negotiations in this context and
during the intercessional period will lead to a narrowing of differences and a
realistic approach that will promote access by industrialized consumer countries
and the development of the mineral resources of the deep seabeds. The dif-
ferences between what we call regulation and what others call control may be
narrowed if we can agree on the conditions of exploitation, including measures
to ensure that exploitation on a non-discriminatory basis will take place, and if
agreement can be reached on protecting relevant interests in the decision-making
process.
In the Third Committee of the Conference, there were mixed results on-
formulating treaty texts for protection of the marine environment and ocean-
ographic scientific research. We were pleased that texts concerning the preser-
vation of the marine environment were prepared on several points including
basic obligations, particular obligations, global and regional cooperation and
technical assistance. But basic political issues remain to be resolved on the
jurisdiction of port and coastal states with respect to vessel-source pollution
and on whether there will be different obligations for states depending upon
their stage of economic development-the so-called double standard. We believe
that the Caracas session broadened the basis of understanding of the complex
problems involved in drafting new legal obligations to protect the marine envi-
ronment, and there were indications that all states were analyzing their environ-
mental policies in detail.
On the scientific research issue, the various proposals were reduced to four
principal alternatives regarding scientific research within the areas of national
jurisdiction. Some states advocated a regime requiring coastal state consent
for all research. Others supported a modified consent regime. The United States
supported a regime which places obligations on the state conducting the research
to notify the coastal state, provide for its participation and ensure sharing
of the data, and assistance in interpreting such data. Other states proposed
complete freedom of scientific research.
We were encouraged by the fact that for the first time states appeared to
be moving toward serious negotiations on this subject, including serious con-
sideration of our proposal.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
42
Mr. Chairman, we know there will be disputes with respect to the interpre-
tation and application of the provisions of the Treaty. The willingness of the
United States and many others to agree to a particular balance of the rights and
duties of states and the International Authority is predicated upon reasonable
confidence that the balance will be ;fairly maintained, Accordingly, the establish-
ment of an impartial system of peaceful and compulsory third party dispute
settlement is critical. We were encourages[ to find at the Caracas session that
there were states from all Regional Groups that support the need for compre-
hensive dispute settlement provisions. At the end of the session, the United
States co-sponsored, with eight other states from different regions, a working
paper containing alternative texts of draft treaty articles. This document was
prepared, and is in general supported, by a broader informal Group chaired by
the Representatives of Australia and El Salvador, for which Professor Louis
Sohn of the Harvard Law School served as Rapporteur. We hope this document
will facilitate the drafting of treaty articles on this important element of the
Convention.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the Record a copy
of the Report: transmitted by the Delegation to the Department of State on
August 30, and copies of all draft articles sponsored or co-sponsored by the
United States. The consolidated Treaty texts in Committee II and other docu-
ments will be transmitted to the Committee as soon as we receive them from the
U.N. Secretariat.
[Committee staff note: Materials referred to are retained in the committee
Ides.]
Mr. Chairman, it is my firm conviction that a comprehensive treaty is obtain-
able by the end of 1975 as contemplated iri last year's United Nations General
Assembly Resolution. To do so, however, governments must begin serious negoti-
ation the first day at Geneva, and to prepare for that, they must during the
intersessional period appraise the alternatives, meet informally to explore possi-
ble accommodations that go beyond stated positions, and supply their delegates
with instructions that permit a successful negotiation.
,L multilateral ennvomtion of unparalleled complexity affecting some of our
nation's most vital economic and strategic interests is within our reach. We can-
not and will not sign just any Treaty ; but in my judgment we would be terribly
remiss in our _responsihilities to the United States and to the international coni-
mnnity as a whole if we were now to overlook broader and longer-ran;,o per-
spectives. In the year ahead we intend to work diligently and carefully for a
Convention that will protect our interests in the broadest sense of that term. In
this endeavor, b1r, Chairman, we trust that we shall have the guidance and srp-
porl of the Congress and of your Committee. -
Through our mutual cooperative efforts I am certain that we can take the
necessary steps and develop constructive initiatives so that all will agree that
the United States has done all it could to foster a successful outcome of the
Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea on schedule in 1975.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF JOHN NORTON MOORE, CHAIRMAN, THE NA-
TIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON THE
LAW OF THE SEA AND DEPUTY SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE PRESIDENT FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE, AC-
COMPANIED BY HON. HOWARD W. POLLOCK, DEPUTY ADMINIS-
TRATOR OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC AD-
MINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; WILLIAM SUL-
LTVAN, ACTING COORDINATOR OF OCEAN AFFAIRS, DEPART-
MENT OF STATE
SellaI or SPARK\rAN. Mr..ltoore.
if r. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1ilr. Chairman, and distinguished r Members of this committee, it is
a particular pleasure to appear before this committee to testify for the
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/M: CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
executive branch on two bills of fundamental importance to U.S. oceans
policy. With your permission, I would like to place my prepared re-
marks in the record and briefly highlight the central issues.
Senator SrARic AN. We will be happy to include your statement in
the record.
Mr. MooRE. Ambassador Stevenson has just described the ongoing
efforts to reach international agreement at the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea. With these bills, which would
unilaterally extend the fishing jurisdiction of the United States, we
face what may well be the most important oceans policy decision in
the history of the Nation. How we decide may deeply affect the foreign
relations of our country.
Is U.S. oceans policy to be pursued through cooperative efforts at
international agreement or is it to be pursued through unilateral na-
tional measures risking an irreversible pattern of competing national
claims?
PROBLEM FROM EXPANDED FOREIGN FISHING PRESSURE
Mr. Chairman, in posing the issue as starkly as this, I am deeply
appreciative of the very real problems confronting our coastal and
anadromous stocks, particularly those off the Atlantic and Pacific
coasts.
The report of the Commerce Committee clearly illustrates the
seriousness of this problem from expanded foreign fishing pressure
as has the testimony this morning from Senators Magnuson and
Stevens and the statements of Senators Muskie and Pell.
To see the problems at first hand, I recently overflew the foreign
fleets fishing off Alaska in the Bering Sea, and I can attest that the I magnitude of the fishing pressure was very real indeed. rise
su to the
completely appreciative of the problem that has given
legislation that this committee is considering.
COMPREHENSIVE NEW OCEANS TREATY
But the solution to the problem is a comprehensive new oceans
treaty, a treaty which will place management jurisdiction over coastal
species in the coastal State and which would give the United States
jurisdiction over our coastal species, at least to 200 miles off our coast.
Such a treaty should also place jurisdiction in the host State for
anadromous species, the salmon, throughout the range of those species
on the high seas, and it would place highly migratory species, such as
tuna, which do not live in the waters of any one particular coastal
State, under regional or international management.
Mr. Chairman, if the other issues are satisfactorily resolved in the
Law of the Sea Conference, that Conference offers every promise of
solving the coastal and anadromous fisheries problems which have
prompted the legislation before this committee.
There is simply overwhelming support in the Conference for the
concept of some version of a 200-mile economic zone and all of those
versions would give coastal States broad management jurisdiction
over coastal species.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
44
T[14LiNG OF ACHIEVING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT
I also understand the frustration with respect to the timing of
achieving international agreement. The process of internal agreement
is long and difficult. There have been several earlier conferences held,
but for a variety of reasons realistic expectations of concluding a
treaty at the present time are differel A from what we have seen before.
There is a realistic expectation that we can have a comprehensive
treaty on the law of the sea within a matter of months.
STEP4S TI Ard.EV[ATE 'LN'17IR:CM l'1811 RLE.S PROBT.E,M
Mr. Chairman, in the ine,,ntime, a nlunber of steps are being taken
to alleviate our interim fisheries problems.
First, we are actively pnrsnino' bilateral and limited multilateral
solutions to assist with this problem. Senator .M ushie has described
the nature of some of those efforts off the eastern coast of the United
States within I('NAF, and also some of the, problems that we have in
enforcement of that TCNAF agreement. Enforcement has been a prob-
lem and we are making every effort to improve the situation.
The administration is preparing- a statement for the record oil these
efforts to protect onr stocks in the Interim through bilateral end lim-
ited multilateral solutions, and with cony permission, Mr. Chairman.
we will submit that statement, for the record.
Senat;Or SPAIm 1TAN. Without objection.
[The info_-Lnation referred to follows :]
STATUS OF MAJOR 1i' STIERIES STOCKS OFF U.S. COASTS AND ONGOING UTER-
YATION'AL IIIANAGS M ENT ACTIViTIEs
[Supplied by U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocea.ide and Atmospheric
ad.oi alstra i lop l
Since the turn of the century, there has been ;[ rapid increase in the utilization
of living resources of the oceans, and during the past 72 years, the world-wide
harvest of marine fishes has increased fifteen-fold, with the current catch in the
vicinity of TO million metric tons. 'I'll(, poteoltial annual yield of traditional fish-
eries resources from the oceans is now estimated to be in the vicinity of 100-150
million metric tons; it has been estimated that the upper limits of sustainable
yield will be reached well before the year 2000.
While the inportancu of marine fish to most other countries is generally reccg-
nized, there is a tendency to underrate their importance to the United States.
Americans are not traditionally fish eater, with an annual direct: consumption of
only 12 pounds, per capita, but the total utilization of fish and fish products in
the United Sta-es is 85 rounds (live weight b per capita. The difference is largely
accounted for iy the u.e of fish meal in poultry and animal husbandry, which
has been a niajor factor contributing to tho relatively low cost of meat _n this
country. Hence, we are dependent in a major wny on fish as a r;iw material, and
this helps to acconnt for the United States being the ranking importer of fish
and fish prodnc'-s.
The oceans' living resources play an important role in human recrea.t:ionaI
activities and meet certain aesthetic needs. In 1972, for example, Americans spent.
17 million plan-days fishing for marine sport fish and their catch afor
about 7.4 pounds of fish ner capita. accounted
The rising demand for fish over the past several dee rides has led to increased
exploitation of ocean fiches. thus iutensityiing problems concerned with conser-
vation of resources and in achieving national and international social and eco-
nomic objectives. Failure to resolve these problems has (1) led to biological and
economic waste, (2) diminished the hioloeiual productivity of It number of im-
portant commercial fish species, (3) introduced a variety of social and economic
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 49lA-RDP75BOO38OR00050041 OOO3-3
problems to fishing nations of the world, and (4) heightened international ten-
sions between major fishing nations, as well as between developed and develop-
ing countries of the world. The failures of management can be associated with
archaic institutional constraints, conflicting interest of user groups, fragmenta-
tion of jurisdiction at the national and international levels, excessive demands
for precise scientific information, the validity of which must be accepted by all
user groups, and delays in developing management systems, which have led
to biological and economic overfishing and overcapitalization.
The volume of fish harvested off the U.S. coast has increased dramatically in
25 years from 2.0 million metric tons (MMT) in 1948, to 5.0 MMT in 1972. Almost
all this additional catch has gone to foreign fishermen in their worldwide search
for further protein supplies. The growth in U.S. demand, therefore, has been
supplied by imports. This multiplying fishing pressure and the lack of effective
management has resulted in overfishing of several important species. Manage-
ment of fisheries resources within the territorial seas lies mainly with states
whose policies, interests, and authorities often result in conflicting and ineffi-
cient regulations. Moreover, the roles of state and Federal governments in man-
agement in the contiguous zones have not always been clearly defined, leading
in some cases to a management vacuum. International fisheries resources off
the coasts of the U.S. have been managed through 8 international commissions
and 12 bilateral agreements.
In the case of international commissions, agreement has been by consensus ;
bilaterals have been negotiated, where multilateral agreements have not been ap-
plicable. None of these commissions or bilaterals has resulted in fully satis-
factory arrangments for the resources or our U.S. sport and commercial fisher-
men. Largely as a result of these arrangements, characterized as being too-little,
too-late, there has been a serious depletion of some major fisheries stocks of the
U.S. coastal fishery resources and a major deterioration of some important seg-
ments of the fishing industry.
The amount and variety of fishes found in the oceans adjacent to the U.S. and
in our estuaries are enormous. The American Fisheries Society has indentified by
common name over 2,000 species of finfish in the inland and ocean waters of the
U.S. and Canada. U.S. commercial landings of about 170 species of finfish and 50
species of shellfish are reported annually. Present limited reports identify about
78 species groups as forming the basis of marine angling. It is estimated that
the potential harvest off the U.S. coast is around 18.5 million metric tons. In
1972, the U.S. and foreign fleets caught around 5.0 million metric tons.
To take advantage of these abundant fisheries resources off our coasts, many
nations have built and equipped huge fleets, which are capable of sustained
large-scale operations in waters distant from their home bases. This has re-
sulted in large, often subsidized foreign fleets fishing intensively just outside
the U.S. contiguous fisheries zone (CFZ) in many instances on stocks historically
harvested by U.S. fishermen, or stocks of potential interest to U.S. fishermen.
Fisheries stocks are continually self-renewing and may be harvested regu-
larly in moderation. However, continued overfishing of a resource can lead to
severe and possibly lasting damage. Since the advent of large foreign fleets off
New England, the total haddock harvest decreased from about 249 thousand
metric tons in 1965, to 26 thousand metric tons in 1972. A zero quota was estab-
lished, but foreign fishing still continues with limited effective controls. In the
North Pacific, halibut stocks are at a low level, with a U.S.-Canada catch of 14
thousand metric tons in 1973, compared to 29 thousand metric tons in 1963.
U.S. efforts through the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC)
have been influential in initiatives concerned with foreign trawling activities
and small successes have been achieved in this area. However, incidental for-
eign catches still present a serious problem to the conservation of the halibut
resource. Thus, the stock's ability to respond to remedial measures may be
lost by continuation of largely uncontrolled foreign fisheries.
A further indication of the tremendous increase in foreign fishing off our
coasts can be seen from a look at Japan's historical fishery record in the North
Pacific. In 1954, the Japanese catch totalled 13,000 metric tons ; whereas, in
1972, the catch had risen to 2.3 million metric tons. Virtually all of these fish
were taken within 200 miles of the U.S. coast. Japan, incidentally, takes by
far the greatest percentage of the total foreign catch off our U.S. coast in the
Pacific Ocean.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75BOO38OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
1- 6
To a very large degree, the impact of foreign fishing has resulted in the
depletion of over twenty U.S. fisheries species. This estimate may be too low,
since in many eases, adequate data for sound assessment are not available
or not in a usable form.
The list of overfished and depleted stocks in the Pacific includes the halibut,
pollock, sablefish, yellowfin sole, black cud, ocean perch, Alaska shrimp, and
king and tanner crabs.
Apart from the serious effects of this concentrated harvest on stocks, damage
to U.S. fishermen's gear and damage to nursery stocks of fish not sou; ht, but
important to 11w i AS. fleet, frequently occurs.
While the number of species damaged by distant-water fishing along the
Atlantic coast may mit be as long, the impact has been, in many ways, even
more dramatic, since it includes several traditional fisheries which have been
carried on for many decades by American fishermen. Two outstanding exam-
ples have been the depletion of the haddock off New England and the poss'.ble
destruction of the river herring in the middle Atlantic area. Other Atlantic
stocks severely damaged or threatened include herring, yellowtail flounder, and
redfish.
The solution to these fishery problems is a new comprehensive Law of the
Sea Treaty. In fact fisheries stocks off the U.S. coast can be most effectively
managed and conserved only by a comprehensive Law of the Sea Treats. In the
meantime, a number of measures have been taken to protect these stocks be-
tween now and the implementation of the Treaty. Steps have been undertaaen
to strengthen the present arrangements to make them more effective and ad-
ditional initiatives will be pursued during the next several months to continue
this course of action. The following examples are illustrative of actions that
have been taken recently and objectives that will be pursued in the near future.
Considerable effort has been directed toward strengthening the Interraaticnal
Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, which involves 17 nations
that conduct extensive fisheries off the eastern coast of the U.S. and f'anada.
Last. year, the U.S. was able to achieve an overall catch quota program desigaed
to permit stocks to recover to levels permitting maximum sustainable yield
within a 3-year period. The overall quota was set below the sum of individual
species, or stock quotas, to force more selective fishing and minimize longstand-
ing incidental catch problems. The intermixing of species, particularly charac-
teristic of the Georges Bank area, makes it impossible to implement species
quotas accurately or effectively. The so-called two-tiered quota is a manf.ge-
ment method which encompasses the entire ecosystem for the area under
consideration.
Gear regulations were also adopted to force selective fishing and additional
regulations to afford greater protection are on the agenda this fall. International
enforcement measures, while still short of U.S. objectives, have come a long way
over the past few years. Boarding and inspection of vessels of participating coun-
tries are carried out on a routine basis. It was largely the result of such. inspec-
tions that recent violations involving Spanish. West German, and Failed
Kingdom vessels were discovered and brought to the attention of flag-slate
authorities. At it special meeting scheduled this fall for members of Panel 5 who
are engaged in fishing in areas off the U.S. coast, the U.S. will seek amendment
of existing Rear restriction controls, area closures, and modification of the
exemption provision for regulated trawl fisheries and stocks under a 9.ero
quota. These initiatives concern haddock :in(] yellowtail flounder stocks, which
are evidencing serious difficulties due to foreign as well as domestic pressures.
The problem of the depletion of :halibut storks in the eastern Bering Sea and
the Gulf of Alaska continues to be a major concern to the Federal Government.
Faced with serious declines in the catches of North American set-line fishermen,
the Governments of Canada and the U.S. recently obtained the cooperatior of
.lopan in taking voluntary measures in the eastern Bering Sea to reduce the
incidental catch of halibut. by Japanese travelers. These measures were taken
in addition to measures adopted by. Japan, Canada, and the U.S., under the
auspices of tie International North Pacific Fiohcries Commission. Subsequently,
Canada and the U.S. approached the Soviet Union, urging the adoption of appro-
priate conservation measures similar to those already adopted by Japan, and
also to take appropriate steps to reduce the incidental catch of halibut in the
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/0747 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
Gulf of Alaska, where increased trawling efforts with a substantial incidental
catch of halibut were observed earlier this year.
The Soviets agreed to undertake joint scientific cooperation to assess the
problem and discuss within the next several months appropriate measures to
deal with the problem. One of the continuing U.S. objectives is to seek adequate
joint and voluntary measures to protect halibut. This will not only be done
within the framework of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission,
but also through discussions with those countries not members of that Com-
mission. Other objectives within the International North Pacific Fisheries Com-
mission are to reduce fishing effort on several stocks which are believed to be
overlished (such as pollock, Pacific ocean perch, black cod, and herring), to
pursue additional measures needed to protect western Alaska salmon (Bristol
Bay), to commence studies on groundfish (other than halibut) in the Bering
Sea and to seek conservation measures concerning these groundfish.
U.S. efforts through the International Pacific Halibut Commission, which in-
volves Canada and the U.S., have also been influential in initiatives concerned
with foreign trawling activities in the eastern Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska,
where the incidental catch of halibut presents a serious problem. This is, again,
another means of exerting pressure to achieve needed protection.
Since the mid-sixties, the U.S. has entered into a number of bilateral agree-
ments to protect U.S. interests in the coastal fisheries lying outside the contiguous
fisheries zone. These agreements involve the U.S.S.R., Japan, Canada, the Re-
public of Korea, Poland, and Romania. The objective has been to provide work-
able arrangements to protect established U.S. fisheries and to foster conservation
for stocks of interest to the U.S. which fell outside established international
fisheries commissions or involved non-members of these commissions. Under
these arrangements, the U.S. has sought to reduce fishing effort on stocks that
were under great pressure, assure provisions for adequate scientific and biological
assessment to enable the development of rational catch limitations, to ensure
that catch and effort limitations and other provisions are adequately enforced,
and to provide measures to reduce interference by foreign trawlers of established
U.S. coastal fisheries.
An international agreement with Brazil provides access for U.S. vessels and for
conservation of shrimp in coastal waters off Brazil. These arrangements appear
satisfactory from both the standpoint of Brazil and the U.S.
New guidelines have also been formulated concerning enforcement procedures
relating to continental shelf fishery resources. These guidelines, which provide
for agreements concerning procedures to reduce and control incidental catches,
as well as enforcement procedures, were recently communicated to foreign gov-
ernments whose vessels fish above the continental shelf of the United States. The
substance of the guidelines is contained in the letter addressed to Senator Magnu-
son on September i, 1974, and is a part of the record.
In addition to pursuing a course of strengthening the present arrangements,
the U.S. intends to initiate at an early date, multilateral discussions with all
countries fishing in the eastern Bering Sea and the eastern North Pacific Ocean,
to develop arrangements for cooperative collection and analyses of biological
data to permit quality conservation and management decisions. Our major con-
cern is the increasing level of foreign fishing activities on stocks of present or
potential importance to American fishermen and the lack of adequate informa-
tion to allow for timely assessments and, consequently; followup with needed
actions whenever this may be necessary.
BILATERAL AND LIMITED EFFORTS TO ALLEVIATE INTERIM FISIIA;RIES
PROBLEM
Mr. MooRE. I am also accompanied this morning by the Honorable
Howard Pollack, the Deputy Administrator of NO A, and by Mr.
William Sullivan, the Acting Coordinator of Ocean Affairs of the
Department of State. They are prepared to discuss these bilateral and
limited multilateral efforts to alleviate this interim problem.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : C1A-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
Second, Mr. Chairman, to deal with the interim problem we have
proposed in the Conference that the fisheries as well as certain other
aspects of the new law of the sea treaty should be provisionally ap-
plied. That is, that they should go into force as Boon as the t reary is
signed without waiting for th,e treaty to come into full legal farce after
the appropriate number of ratiticaLions. We will., of course. consult
with this committee and the Congress as to how provisional applica-
tion shrndd be effectuated.
Third, we are today announcing a significant new enforcement pro
cedure for the protection of our coastal resources. These are contained
in the letter referred to by Suitor Magnuson which was sent to him
this morning and which has been appended to my testiruony.
Those new enforcement, procedures will enable more liberal boarding
practices whenever foreign ships ate fishing with bottom gear which
would normally result in the taking of Continental Shelf fishery
ra'sot trees.
Senator 11lrsicrr:. Will you yield for a point of clarification? I
assume that your new procedure will apply only to the 12-mile zone
and not to the 200?
Mr. 11looRE. The new procedures would apply throughout the range
of the U.S. Continental Shelf where there would be a taking or a use
of bottom gear which would normally take Continental Shelf living
resources. It would go beyond the 12-mile fisheries contiguous zone.
Sella fm- lft ~'i; i i : . 1 t would go out i o 200 miles?
Mr. MO-31;E. In situations where the Continental Shelf were to go
beyond 200 miles, it would, of course, follow the Continental Shelf.
Senator Mrszu1a. I will pursue this later but the letter was not ex-
plicit on that point and [ thought it would be helpful at this poi.at to
understand that.
AL'. MooRE. Yes.
Second, these now procedures will require that those foreign nations
using such bottom gear would be required to enter into agreements
with the [ nited States for the protection of our Continental Shelf
fishery resources.
These new measures, though far reaching, are consistent with i:eter-
national law as set out in the present 1958 Continental Shelf Con-
vention. but because of their potent al iy severe impact on foreign fish-
ing oil' the United States, they will not be placed into effect fora 90-
day grace period.
;senator' GAMS. A1That is the situation with regard to our relations with
liussia ill part.icu~ar?
Al r. Mcoxn. The Soviet Union is a party to the 1958 Continental
Shell' Convention. In fact, most of the states fishing off our coast,
unlike the 1958 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living
1 csources of the High Seas, are a party to the 1958 Continental Shelf
Convention. So this is one of the major differences between thi; ap-
proach and proceeding under either of the other two approaches rep-
reseuted by legislation before the committee.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/0749CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
We are also studying the availability of means to provide increased
enforcement to protect our coastal and anadromous species in particu-
l arly vulnerable areas.
REASONS EXECUTIVE BRANCH orrosES S. 1988
Despite these interim problems in protecting our fish stocks, the
executive branch is strongly opposed to enactment of legislation such
as S. 1988 which would unilaterally extend U.S. fishing jurisdiction.
We believe that such unilateral action would be seriously harmful to
our oceans and foreign relations interests in at least five principal
ways.
First, it has been counter to U.S. oceans policy ever since the Truman
proclamation concerning Continental Shelf resources to have unilat-
eral extensions of national jurisdiction. We have consistently protested
such unilateral extensions and we feel that such claims cannot be
controlled. That is, if a claim were to be made by the United States
with respect to fishing resources, some other nation may, for example,
make a claim with respect to a 200-mile territorial sea, or they might
make a claim with respect to the control of navigation, which is vital
to the United States, either in the security field or with respect to the
movement of energy supplies to the United States. They might also
make claim which would interfere with the freedom of marine scien-
tific research on the world's oceans or a variety of other damaging
claims. U.S. leadership and the U.S. role in the world makes any uni-
lateral action by the United States of particular significance. Exten-
sion by other nations following the example of the United States,
where we were to unilaterally extend our jurisdiction, is not merely
a theoretical concern. We have carefully taken soundings both from
our embassies and at the Law of the Sea Conference in Caracas and
it is our feeling that a unilateral step by the United States at this time
would have been highly likely to trigger additional claims by other
nations.
Second, a unilateral extension of fisheries jurisdiction pursuant to
S. 1988 would be seriously harmful to important foreign relations in-
terests of our Nation.
Such a unilateral extension could cause a confrontation with the
Soviet Union, Japan, or other nations which are the principal distant
water fishing nations within this 200-mile area off the United States.
Such a unilateral extension could also threaten existing distant
water U.S. fishing interests and seem certain to insure continuation of
the disputes such as those we have had with Equador and Peru con-
cerning our distant water tuna fishing interests.
Our national interest is also strongly to encourage cooperative solu-
tions to our oceans and other foreign relations problems. To go uni-
lateral in this area would have grave implications for our conflict
management efforts in general.
Again, this is not merely a theoretical problem, as we have seen from
the lesser 50 miles unilateral extension by Iceland of its jurisdiction
over fisheries. This action did precipitate the recent Cod War between
the United Kingdom and Iceland.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : 9JA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
Third, S. 1988 is not compatible with existing international law,
and particularly with the 1958 Convention on the high Seas.
The United States has consistently protested extensions of fishing
jurisdiction beyond 12 miles. Moreover, the International Court of
Justice held only last July in two cases arising from the Cod War
that Iceland's 50-mile fisheries extension was not consistent with the
legal rights of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of
Germany.
It seems particularly .inappropriate in view of the International
Court of Justice ruling for the United States to extend its jurisdic-
tion unilaterally at a time when a new international agreement can be
reasonably expected and is in the process of intensive negotiation.
WILY EXECUTIVE BRANCH OPPOSES S. 1988
Fourth, unilateral extension of our jurisdiction by this legislation
would pose serious risks for our fisheries interests. Lasting protection
of our coastal stocks and anadromous stocks requires a comprehensive
multilateral agreement.
The only way to solve the common pool problem in global fisheries
is a comprehensive agreement dealing on a rational basis with the
different; kinds of species.
Unilateral action could also deter long-run solutions or even interim
solutions in the form of bilaterals with the States that are now fishing
off our coasts, or endanger existing fishery agreements. For example,
should a unilateral extension amount to a violation of existing agree
cnents permitting other nations in turn to abrogate their existing bi-
lateral or other agreements with the United States, then passage of
this legislation could endanger those existing agreements.
Passage would also pose risks for our distant water tuna industry.
Highly migratory species such as tuna need to be managed on a differ-
ent basis and we are trying to encourage a more rational way of deal-
ing wil It the problem than simply 200-mile unilateral claims.
Similarly, we have important distant water coastal fishing interest,
for example, our shrimp industry. We feel that the example of a 200-
inile extension, despite being carefully drawn to include the principle
of full utilization on highly migratory species would present a sub-
stantial risk to those distant water coastal fishing interests.
We also feel that it would be more difficult in the Law of the Sea
Conference to achieve meaningful guarantees binding on all nations
for conservation of living resources if this legislation were passed. It
is important that all nations be willing to accept such conservation ob-
ligations in their extensions of jurisdiction and the way to get such an
obligation is through appropriate international agreement, not, by
unilateral .action.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, unilateral extension by legislation such as
S. 1988, could seriously undercut efforts to conclude the Law of the
Sea'1'reaty. If a wave of unilateral action and ocean claims is precipi-
tated by ocher states, such action once taken is very difficult to undo.
It would tend to harden positions which would make it extremely
difficult to have the kind of compromise that is in the interest o:E all
nations.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/0751 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
Passage could also detract attention from the negotiations in the up-
coming session of the Conference and turn attention to a series of de-
bates on the merits of the unilateral action as opposed to the hard
task of negotiating a compromise on an effective oceans law treaty.
Last, it could undermine the political compromise necessary for
the, package treaty which is shaping up in the negotiations.. If some
nations feel that it is possible to et the interests which they seek by
unilateral action, particularly without the necessity to reach agree-
ment on the other issues, then it is entirely possible that we will be
back into the existing situation we have now of a series of different
agreements in which nations are free to pick and choose among them,
rather than a comprehensive new oceans law treaty.
I would like, in closing, to say a brief word about S. 3783, intro-
duced by the chairman of this committee. This bill, because it is
apparently intended to be based on article 7 of the Geneva Convention
on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High
Seas, is not potentially as objectionable as S. 1988. As it stands, of
course, it does attempt to apply U.S. jurisdiction to non-parties to the
agreement; that is, the Soviet Union and Japan, which in this case
are not parties to the 1958 Geneva Convention on Fishing and Con-
servation on the High Seas.
Senator JAVrrs. Could we ask a question at that point? I thought
you said before that the Soviet Union was a party to the 1958 agree-
ment.
Mr. Moorm. The difference is between the Convention on the Con-
tinental Shelf, which is also a 1958 Geneva convention, in which the
Soviet Union is a party, and in which it is lawful for us to take the
recent measures that we are announcing today, and the situation
under the 1958 Geneva Convention on Fishing and Conservation of
the Living Resources of the High Seas, in which the Soviet Union is
not a party.
Senator JAVITS. That is a very important point, I think. Would
you be good enough, with the Chair's permission, to give us a tech
nical memorandum specifying the differences? Would you be good
enough to do that?
Mr. Moom;. I would be pleased to do that.
Senator JAvrrs. I think that is of critical importance. We are deeply
affected like everybody else because we are such big consumers in New
York.
So I congratulate my colleagues like Senator Pell and Senator
Muskie and Senator Case, and we want to support all their efforts, but
I think this technical point could prove very important.
Mr. Moony. We would be pleased to do that, Senator, as well as to
work with this committee and the other concerned committees to see
whether some legislation might be possible which could be built, with
appropriate modifications on S. 3783, but which would build on exist-
ing international law rather than constituting a unilateral action that
would have the costs which we have enumerated.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIs4-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
senator JAvnTs. 1 ask una:^imous consent that that reply may be
incorporated.
SP'11ator PELT. I HOW presiding]. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
1'7:OTL:C'7YON of LINING RESOURCES OF THE OCEANS BEYOND TIIE CONIGUOUS
FlNIIF:aIsa ZONE
1Ienioraoduwn sul:iplie(l by Department of State)
On July 25, 1974, the international Court of Justice stated that the extension
of the fisheries jurisdiction of a coastal slate to a twelve-Inile zone contiguous to
the coast now appears to be generally accepted as customary international law.
I'i.vhcr?,es I trisdtiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, [ C..J.
Reports 1974, p. 3, 23; Fisheries Jurisdiction. (Federal Republic of Germany v.
Iceland), Merits. Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 175, 192. Iceland's unilateral
claim to a 50-mile contiguous fisheries zone was held to constitute an infringe-
ment of the principle enshrined in Article 2 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on
the High Seas (TEAS 5969), which requires that all states, including coastal
states, pay reasonable regard to the interests of other states in the exercise of
their freedcm of fishing on the high seas, in this case the historic fishing rights
of the United Kingdom. United Kingdom v. Iceland at 29; Federal Republic of
Germany v. Iceland at 198. The Court further declared that any rights over
fisheries that a state may seek in adjacent areas of the high seas must be fm-
plemeuted by agreement between the states concerned. United Kingdom v. Ice-
land at 25-26; Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland at 194.
While several coastal states have unilaterally claimed fisheries jurisdiction
or territorial seas in broad areas adjacent to their coasts, the United States and
others have consistently protested every extension of fisheries jurisdiction
beyond twelve miles and every extension of the territorial sea beyond three miles.
The basis o:' these protests has been that any such unilateral extension of coastal
state jurisdiction is it violation of international law.
The question then arises, In light of the need to protect coastal fisheries ,tocks
from depletion pending the outcome of the Third United Nations Conference on
the Law of the Sea, what steps may a coastal state take consistent with existing
international law?
First, a coastal state may undertake negotiations with any state or states for
the purpose of achieving bilateral or multilateral agreement on conservation
measures to be taker..
Second, a. coastal state may take reasonable measures, in the exercise of its
sovereign right to explore and exploit the natural resources of its continental
shelf, to avert the taking of living organisms belonging to sedentary species by
nationals oe other states without the express consent of the coastal state. The
legal basis for such measures is the continental shelf doctrine, which is widely
recognized to be customary international law, as codified in the 19,118 Geneva
Convention on the continental Shelf (TIAS 5578). This is because the coastal
state's rights to living organisms belonging to sedentary species (otherwise
known as continental shelf fishery resources) are exclusive in the sense that if
the coastal state does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural
resources, no one may undertake these activities without the express consent of
the coastal state. See Convention on the Continental Shelf, Article 2, paragraph 2;
North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 3, 22. Of course,
any steps taken by the coastal state in the exercise of these rights must not result
in any unjustifiable interference with navigation, fishing or the conservation of
living resources of the sea. See Convention on the Continental Shelf, Article 5,
paragraph I.
An example of reasonable steps taken to avert the taking of living organisms
belonging to sedentary species is the plan for enforcement of the United States'
rights to continental shelf fishery resources contained in the diplomatic note of
September 5, 1974 circulated by the United States to the governments whose
fishermen are known to fish in the waters adjacent to the coast of the United
States.
Third, a coastal state may take unilateral measures of conservation within
the meaning of and pursuant to Article 7 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on. Fish-
ing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas (TIAS 5969).
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 - CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
53
Such measures differ fundamentally from measures taken to avert the taking
of continental shelf fisheries resources pursuant to the continental shelf doctrine
in that Article 7 unilateral measures of conservation relate to living resources
of the high seas which are not subject to the jurisdiction of any state rather than
to sedentary species which are subject to coastal state jurisdiction. Furthermore,
Article 7 was not a codification of customary international law and has not been
used to assert unilateral measures against states not party to the Convention
on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas.
Unilateral measures of conservation pursuant to Article 7 must meet four
conditions to be recognized as valid: (1) prior to adoption, negotiations with
the other states concerned with a view to the maintenance of the productivity
of any stock of fish or other marine resource in the relevant area of the high
seas have not led to an agreement within six months; (2) here is a need for
urgent application of conservation measures; (3) the measures adopted are
based upon appropriate scientific findings; and (4) such measures do not dis-
criminate in form or in fact against foreign fishermen.
The United States (with an understanding) and the following states are par-
ties to the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of
the High Seas : Australia, Belgium, Cambodia, Colombia, Denmark (with a re-
servation), Dominican Republic, Fiji, Finland, France, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya,
Lesotho (notification that it considers itself bound), Madagascar, Malawi,
Malagsia, Mauritius, Mexico, The Netherlands, Nigeria, Portugal, Sierra Leone,
South Africa, Spain (with a statement), Switzerland, Thailand, Tongo, Trinidad
and Tobago, Uganda, The United Kingdom (with a statement), Upper Volta,
Venezuela and Yugoslavia.
CHOICE : COOPERATIVE OR UNILATERAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. MOORE. In conclusion, Mr.- Chairman, this committee, the Con-
gress, and the Nation are faced with a fundamental choice. That choice
is, are, we to pursue cooperative efforts at solutions to our oceans and
foreign relations problems, even when the going is rough, and the
pace slower than we would like, or are we to pursue unilateral policies
destined to lead to escalating conflict in the oceans? The overall oceans
interest of our Nation, our foreign relations interests, compliance with
our international legal obligations, our fisheries interests themselves,
and our interests in concluding a timely and successful Law of the
Sea Treaty, all require that we firmly set our course toward coopera-
tive solutions. Thank you.
[Mr. Moore's prepared statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN NORTON AMORE
Mr. Chairman, it is a particular pleasure to appear before this Committee
to testify for the executive branch on two bills of fundamental importance to
United States oceans policy. Both bills raise questions deeply affecting the
foreign relations of the nation as well as our fishery and other ocean interests.
They also pose a stark choice for our policy toward an area coverilig more
than two-thirds of the surface of the earth. Is United States oceans policy to be
pursued through cooperative efforts at international agreement? Or is it to
be pursued through unilateral national measures risking an irreversable pat-
tern of conflicting national claims?
In testifying oil these bills, I amn appreciative of the outstanding service
the sponsors of this legislation have continually rendered to the nation in
fishery and other ocean matters. I am also appreciative of the very real prob-
lems confronting coastal and anadromous species off our coasts. This increased
pressure is part of a global trend which in the absence of an adequate inter-
national legal framework for fisheries jurisdiction has in many areas led to
over-exploitation. The depiction of the haddock stock off our Atlantic coast is
an example.
The principal problem in the present pattern of international fisheries juris-
diction is that management jurisdiction does not generally coincide with the
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 j lA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
range of the stocks. As such any effort at sound management and conserva-
tion confronts the classic "common pool problem" similar to that experienced
in the early days of tine east Texas oil fields. That is, in the absence Of agree-
ment, it is not in the interest of any producer acting alone to conserve the re-
source. The solution to this common pool problem in fisheries is broadly based
international agreement providing coastal states with manatgement jurisdic-
tion over coastal and anadromous species with highly migratory species man-
aged by appropriate regional or international organizations.
For the fir,:t time in the history of oceans law it is realistic to expect such
a broadly based agreement covering fisheries jurisdiction. After lengthy prepara-
tory work in the United Nations Seabed Committee, the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea has recently completed its first substantive
session held in Caracas, Venezuela from June 20 to August 29. If other issues
are satisfactorily resolved the Conference offers every promise of solving the
coastal and anadromous fisheries problems which prompted the bill., before
this Committee.
The strong trend in the Conference is for acceptance of a 200-mile eeono:.nic
zone providing coastal states with jurisdi,^tfon over coastal fisheries in a 200-
nni]e area off Their coast, There is also considerable support for host state control
of anadromous species throughout their migratory range and growing support
for special provisions on international and regional management of highly migra-
tory species. In this connection the United States Delegation has indicated that
we can accept and indeed would welcome the 200-mile economic zone as pare of
a satisfactory overall treaty which also protects our other oceans interests, in-
cluding nnim?eded transit of straits used for international navigation.
It is also raadisiic to expect a broadly based oceans treaty in the near future.
'I'll(, General Assembly Resolution which established the Law of the Sea Con-
ference provided that any subsequent session or sessions necessary after the
Caracas session would be held no later than 1975. Pursuant to this schedule, the
Caracas session of the Conference agreed on a second session to be held ir. Geneva
from March -17 to May 3-10, 1075. It also agreed that the formal signing, session
will take pla,,e in Caracas, with July and August 1975 discussed in tau., regard.
We believe that it is important to adhere to this Conference schedule.
Even on this schedule, it is, of course, also important that we prevent fur-her
depletion of ear coastal and anadromous stocks before the new Law of the lea
'treaty comes into force. We are taking several important steps to meet this
need.
First, we are actively pursuing bilateral and limited multilateral approaches
for the protection of our stocks. Progress has been significant in recent moidlis,
ama! we intend to continue to vigorously pursue improved protection bilaterally
and wit hin regional fisheries commissions.
For the information (if the Committee the Administration is preparing and
will shortly submit for the record 9a report: on the present condition of our coastal
and anadromous stocks and effor-s to provide increased interim protection to
those stocks. I am accompanied by the Honorable Howard Pollack, Deputy Ad-
ministrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Depart-
ment of Commerce and Mr. William Sullivan, Acting Coordinator of Ocean Af-
fairs, Depar":ment of State, who are prepared to answer questions on these and
future efforts to protect our coastal and anadromous stocks in the interim period
before a new Law of the Sea Treaty is applied.
Second, we have proposed that the fisheries as well as certain other provisions
of the new Law of the Sea Treaty should be applied on a provisional basis. That
is. they should be applied after signature of the new treaty but before waiting for
the process of ratification to bring the treaty into full legal effect. Provisional
application is a recognized concept of international law and our proposal was
favorably received. We will, of course, consult closely with the Congress as to
how provisional application is to be effectuated.
Third, we are today announcing a significant new measure to provide increased
protection for our stocks until the new Law of the Sea Treaty can he fully
applied. That is, new enforcement procedures to substantially tighten control
over the incidental catch of living resources from the United States continental
shelf. In addition, we are carefully reviewing the availability of means to make
possible increased Coast Guard enforcement efforts to protect our coastaa and
anadromous species in particularly vulnerable areas.
Attached is a letter to Senator Magnuson setting out the new enforcement
measures for tighter control over incidental catches of U.S. continental shelf
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/075~CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
resources. Because of their potentially severe impact of foreign nations fishing
over our continental shelf, these far reaching new measures will go into effect
only after a 90 day grace period to enable affected nations to adjust their fishing
methods or to conclude agreements further protecting our living resources. We
are today notifying affected states of these new measures.
These new procedures will provide substantial increased protection to our
valuable living resources. We believe that they are entirely justified by existing
international law and that jurisdiction over the living resources of the continental
shelf carries with it the right to require other states to enter into agreements
for the protection of such resources if they are taken during fishing for nonshelf
stocks as well as if the taking of such shelf resources is intentional.
An expanded enforcement effort by the Coast Guard would also help ensure
compliance with existing regulations and will assist in the transition from the
present limited fisheries jurisdiction to the broader jurisdiction which is the likely
outcome of a successful Law of the Sea Conference.
Despite the interim problem in protection of our coastal and anadromous
stocks, the Executive Branch is strongly opposed to the enactment of legislation
such as S. 1988 which would unilaterally extend United States fisheries juris-
diction. Enactment of this legislation would not satisfactorily resolve our fisheries
problems, would at most merely anticipate a result likely to emerge in a matter
of months from a successful Law of the Sea Conference, and would be seriously
harmful to United States oceans and foreign relations interests in at least five
principal ways.
First, unilateral action extending national jurisdiction in the oceans is harmful
to overall United States oceans interests and as such we have consistently pro-
tested any extension of fishery or other jurisdiction beyond recognized limits.
A unilateral extension of jurisdiction for one purpose will not always be met by
a similar extension but rather may encourage broader claims which could have
serious implications, for example, with respect to our energy needs in trans-
portation of hydrocarbons, our defense and national security interests in the
unimpeded movement of vessels and aircraft on the worlds oceans, or our interest
in the protection of marine scientific research rights in the oceans.
Because of our broad range of oceans interest and our leadership role in the
world, an example of unilateral action by the United States would have a par-
ticularly severe impact upon the international community which could quickly
lead to a crazy quilt of uncontrolled national claims. Indeed it was the threat
of just such a result with its open ended invitation to conflicts and pressures
on vital U.S. interests that led to a decision in two prior Administrations at the
highest level of Government that U.S. ocean interests and the stability of the
world community would best be served by a broadly supported international
agreement. This Administration strongly agrees with that judgment. Soundings
from our Embassies and at the Caracas session of the Law of the Sea Con-
ference indicate that the possibility of unilateral claims by others is not merely
an abstract concern should this legislation pass.
Second, enactment of legislation such as S. 1988 could be seriously damaging
to important foreign policy objectives of the United States. Unilateral extension
of our fisheries jurisdiction could place the nation in a confrontation with the
Soviet Union, Japan and other distant water fishing nations fishing off our
coasts. These nations strongly maintain the right to fish in high seas areas and
are unlikely to acquiesce in unilateral claims, particularly during the course of
sensitive law of the sea negotiations in which they have substantial interests at
stake. The implications for detente and our relations with Japan are evident.
In fact, both the Soviet Union and Japan have already expressed serious con-
cern over this legislation to our principal negotiators at the Law of the Sea
Conference.
Similarly, unilateral extension of our fisheries jurisdiction coupled with re-
liance on the Fishermen's Protective Act to protect threatened distant water
fishing interests of the United States seem certain to assure continuation of dis-
putes with Ecuador and Peru as well as to generate new disputes with other
coastal states off whose coasts our nationals fish.
It is strongly in the national interest to encourage cooperative solutions to
oceans problems rather than a pattern of competing national claims. A widely
agreed comprehensive Law of the Sea Treaty will promote development of ocean
uses and will reduce the chances of ocean disputes leading to conflict among na-
tions. If these interests seem too theoretical we night recall the recent "Cod
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 r>6 IA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
War" het.weer the United Kingdom and iceband which resulted from a more
modest Icelandic claim of a 50-111ile fisheries contiguous zone.
Third, a on extension of on,, fisheries jurisdictibeyond 12 miles would
not be compatible with existing international law, and particularly with the
Convention or. the High Seas to which the United States and forty-five other
nations are party. The United States has consistently protested any extension
of fisheries jurisdiction beyond 12 miles as a violation of international law. And
the 1 nternaticual Court of Justice held only last month in two cases arising
from the "Cod War" that the 50-mile unilateral extension of fisheries jurisdic-
tion by Iceland was not consistent with the rights of the United Kingdom and
the Federal Republic of Germany.
Mr. Chairman, what would we do if this bill were to become law and anotier
country brings us before the International Court of Justice'? Would we invoke
our reservation and maintain that issues relating to the use of the seas up to
200-iniles froi.i our coast, or even hundreds of miles beyond this in the case of
salmon, are exelusivel,y within our domestic jurisdiction'.' ()r would we respond
on the merits and risk losing what we are certain to get from a widely accepted
Law of the Sea Treaty?
Violation of our international legal obligations by encroaching on existing
high seas freedoms can be seriously detrimental to a variety of oceans interests
dependent on maintenance of shared community freedoms in the high sell,,. The
appropriate war to change these oltligatiotis in order to deal with new circtant-
stances is by agreement. It is particularly inappropriate to argue that a uni-
lateral act contrary to these obligations is required by such circumstances when
a widely supported agreement that resolves the problem is nearing completion.
As this Committee knows, violation of our international legal obligations can
have the mo - serious short and long rum costs to the nation.
Fourth, a unilateral extension of our fislieries jurisdiction would pose serious
risks for our fisheries interests. Protection of our coastal and anadronious stocks
can only be achieved with the agreetneut of the states participating in the
harvesting o those stocks. Unilateral action not only fails to achieve such
r, reemeut bit it may also endanger existing fishery agreements and efforts to
resolve the problem on a more lasting bus.is with such countries. Similarly, pro-
tection of our interests in fishing for highly migratory species such as tuna or
coastal species such as shrimp where U.S. nationals may fish off the coasts of
other nation, can otnly be achieved through cooperative solutions. In short, we
cavaot expect to achieve acquiescence from states fishing off our coast, and
we will harden tare positions of other countries off whose coasts we fish. The
resolution of old disputes will be made more difficult and their cost, to our
fishermen and our Government will continue. At the same time we will :face new
disputes off our own coast and elsewhere.
S. 1988 or other similar legislation unilaterally extending United States
fisheries ,jurisdiction would provide others with an opportunity to make uni-
lateral claims damaging to our distant. water fishing interests despite any ea:cep-
lions for highly migratory species or provisions for full utilization written into
the legisbtticn. If the United States can make a unilateral claim elirninating: the
freedom to fish on the high seas, it is difficult to assert that other nations are
bound by the exceptions and provisions contained in our own legislation.
Moreover, even by its terms S. 1988 would include highly migratory species in
the extension of coastal state juri,dictiort where such species "are not managed
pursuant to bilateral or multilateral fishery agreements." We should keep in
mind that the principal countries with which we have disputes concerning juris-
diction over highly migratory species are not now parties to agreements relating
to the management of such stocks.
A unilateral extension of fisheries jurisdiction by the United States could also
make it more difficult to achieve meaningful guarantees such as those we are
advocalita it the Law of the Sea Conferc,tice binding on all nations for the con-
servation of the living resources of the oceans. Moreover, it could make more
difficult acceptance of a rational basis for fisheries management ; that is, juris-
diction over anadromous species ut the host state and jurisdiction over highly
migratory species in a regional or international organization. As such, legislation
such as S. 1988, although intended to protect our fish stocks, could paradoxically,
have the opposite effect not only on stocks off our coast but on fish stocks the
world over.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/0757 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
Finally, passage at this time of legislation such as S. 1988 unilaterally extend-
ing the fisheries jurisdiction of the United States would seriously undercut the
effort of all nations to achieve a comprehensive oceans law treaty. Our nation has
urged particular care and restraint in avoiding new oceans claims during the
course of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. A pattern
of escalating unilateral claims during the Conference could destroy the delicate
fabric of this most promising and difficult negotiation. It could also undermine
the essential political compromise by which all nations would agree on a single
package treaty. And by unilaterally taking action which we have said must be
dependent on a satisfactory overall compromise, it could harm other United States
oceans interests such as protection of vital navigational freedoms, marine scien-
tific research, environmental goals, or economic interests such as a regime for
deep seabed mining which will promote secure access to the minerals of the deep
seabed area.
Mr. Chairman, these principal difficulties with legislation such as S. 1988 are
in no sense alleviated by its emergency or interim nature. Section 11(B) of
S. 1988 provides that the act would expire on such date as the Law of the Sea
Treaty comes into force or is provisionally applied. Unfortunately, however, in
the interim period the legislation would be simply a unilateral extension with
all of the associated costs of unilateralism and with none of the benefits of a
lasting solution. Moreover, this legislation could well prevent the agreement
which is expected to supercede it.
In commenting on S. 1988 I have sought only to deal with the fundamental
issue of unilateral extension of United States fisheries jurisdiction which is the
central feature of this bill. The Executive Branch has not at this time taken a
position on the fisheries management aspects of the bill. Similarly, I have not
sought to discuss the specifics of S. 3783 which, because it is intended to be rooted
in the 1958 Geneva Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Re-
sources of the High Seas, is potentially not as objectionable as S. 1988. The
principal problem with S. 3783, of course, is that the most important nations
fishing for our coastal and anadromous species, including the Soviet Union and
Japan, are not parties to the 1958 Convention. With appropriate changes it is
possible that S. 3783 or a similar measure rooted in existing international law
could be a useful alternative to S. 1988 without the grave impact on our overall
oceans and foreign relations interests. Accordingly before commenting further
on S. 3783 the Executive Branch would welcome an opportunity for further study
with the Congress with a view to examining the possibility of changes which
might make S. 3783 acceptable.
Mr. Chairman, this Committee, the Congress, and the nation are faced with
a fundamental choice. Are we to pursue cooperative efforts at solution to our
oceans problems even when the going is rough and the pace slower than we would
like? Or are we to pursue unilateral policies destined to lead to escalating con-
flict in the oceans?
The overall oceans interests of our nation, our foreign relations interests, com-
pliance with our international legal obligations, our fisheries interests them-
selves, and our interest in concluding a timely and successful Law of the Sea
Treaty all strongly require that we firmly set our course toward cooperative
solutions. In any event, I am particularly heartened that this fundamental choice
is being examined by this Committee, and trust that on this issue, as on all
others, it will bring its understanding and experience to bear on the short and
long- range implications of this choice for the foreign relations of the nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COMMENDATION OF WITNESSES
Senator PELT,. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Before I ask some questions, I would like to say a few words. I am
pleased to have had the pleasure of hearing the distinguished mem-
bers of the American delegation to the recent Law of the Sea Con-
ference in Caracas. Their efforts, and their contribution to the Con-
ference, have been noticed and appreciated by many Americans. There
are few concerns before the world today that deserve more urgent
attention.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
58
U.S. ACTION PROTECTING FLSII WITHOUT UNDERMINLNG INTERNATIONAL
NEGOTIATIONS
The, issue we are considering; here today is not a simple one. I share
the con er?n of many U.S. fishermen that the Government must move
to protect, their source of livelihood. At the same time, I support U.S.
cli or?ts at fie Law of the Sea proceedings. The question must then be
asked: Ho-w can the United States act to protect certain species of
fish without undermining its commitment to the establishment of an
orderly int?rnational law of the sea'?
Certain facts must be kept in mind in attempting to answer this
question. 1\0 final agreement emerged from Caracas. Realistically, al-
though I am optimistic that a satisfactory agreement will ultimately
materialize, it will be several years and perhaps longer before one
does. But, time is or. the essence. 1, for one, am afraid. that there may not
be. any fish to save or fishing to regulate if steps to protect fish stocks
are not taken immediately.
I am fully aware that any U.S. actions to regulate fishing that either
in fact or appearance benefit U.S. fishermen to the detriment of
foreign fisiermen, will result, in retaliatory actions by other nations.
As a resat;, we must, make clear that any controls regulating fishing
distribute the burden fairly and even to' all fishermen, regardless of
nationality.
In the long run, it is in the interest of everyone concerned--United
States, Japan, the Soviet Union-and the fish themselves-that proper
action be taken to insure. a lasting supply of fish. As a result, I am
prepared to support legislation that is clearly conservation oriented
and nondimcriminatory, with confidence that such legislation is fully
consistent with our long-term aims regarding international law of
the sea.
COMMENDATION OF AMBASSADOR STEVENSON, U.S. DELEGATION
At this time, I congratulate and thank Ambassador Stevenson for
all of the work he has been doing. We in the committee know the fam-
ily and personal sacrifice that he has undergone in taking on this
responsibility, the respect and regard which he is held by other nations
is seen and observed, and I trust very much he will be seeing this
project, through to conclusion. I want to congratulate the delegation on
all of the work that they have done, because I think the press has
given them scant credit. I read a column the other day talking about
cocktails and sunning themselves. I never saw a group who worked
harder starting from 9 in the morning to very often 1 in the next
morning.
Senator ("ASE. They started before 9 a.m. That is the trouble.
ALI'T:RNATIVES TO PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Senator PELL. Are there any alternatives to the legislation that we
are proposing which are stronger than Senator Fulbright's legisla-
tion, any that would be acceptable?
For cxamhle. can you see an agreement covering the Management
or specific species of fish between the United States and the foreign
nations actually being concluded? I realize there are conversations.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/08 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
Can you see an agreement with the Soviets, an agreement with the
Japanese, reaching conclusion within the next period of a few weeks?
Mr. STEVENSON. First, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you very mulch
on behalf of myself and the delegation. I think we did have a very
hard-working delegation this summer, and on behalf of them and
their wives, I appreciate very much the correction that you have
placed into the record as to their activities.
I think, Mr. Chairman, the alternative that we feel is by far the
best alternative, is really a maximum effort to finish in 1975. I think
there was some indication that if we would take the interim legisla-
tion, that then we could leisurely complete the treaty over a period of
2 or 3 or even 4 years. My perception is quite different. I think
unless we get agreement next year, it is going to be increasingly dif-
ficult to get an international agreement, so that the interim legisla-
tion will tend to become permanent rather than interim. While, as
I indicated, our progress in terms of agreement on iconcrete texts
was not as much as we would have liked this summer, I think the
groundwork has been prepared in all ways for this maximum effort
next year, and what we do need is this Government attention to
the problem at the highest level.
Now, on your concrete question about the interim or other ap-
proaches, Professor Moore did mention, and I think this is con-
sistent with the maximum effort to finish next year, that we very
much do favor provisional application, and this, of course, will re-
quire appropriate legislative arrangements. I personally would favor
proceeding with that very promptly so we will have the necessary
legislation in place for the provisional application of the fisheries
provisions.
We have also suggested the same thing for the deep seabed. There
may be other areas. So I certainly think that is highly desirable.
I also think that whatever we can do with respetct to still further
improvements in the ICNAF and other regional arrangements and
through bilateral discussions with the Soviets and Japanese, should
be vigorously pursued. In addition to the multilateral discussions
that we were having in Caracas, we, of course, particularly in light
of the visits of the representatives of this committee, have been talk-
ing to the Japanese and Soviets about trying to do something on an
interim basis to relieve the pressure on our domestic fisheries.
As Professor Moore indicated, I think building on S. 3783 there
certainly would be a possibility of doing something more.
Senator PELL. My question was more specific. Do you see any real
possibility in the next few weeks of the conclusion of a bilateral
agreement with either Russia or Japan ?
Mr. STEVENSON. Not within the next few weeks.
BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND
SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS
Senator PELL. Within the Department of State, they will be creat-
ing a Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scien-
tific Affairs, headed by an Assistant Secretary. As chairman of the
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
GO
Oceans and International S'Llbcomtnittec. of the Foreign Relations
Committee, I a)tt very interested in that, and it was my legislation
which caused it to be set up.
In this regard what is being done to help the fishing industry? My
understanding is the Deputy Assistant Secretary in charge of the
fisheries side of it, will be accorded the rank of Ambassador, bat I
would like to know a little more specifically what is being done. How
many positions are being budgeted for this job? I think it should be
at least 20. And have you found a specific man to occupy it?
I think these should be addressed to Mr. Maw, probably.
Mr. MAW. I understand, Mr. Chairman, steps are actively being
taken to fill those positions and to reorganize that department and we
hope you will hear something on it very soon.
Senator PELL. I would like again a more specific reply. The law was
passed a year ago.
Mr. MAW. That is right.
Senator PELL. And I am asking specifically will the man in charge
be given the rank of Ambassador? That is agreed on, I think.
Mr. MAW. I am not, unfortunately, in a position to answer your
specific question today but we will give you that information.
Senator PELL. Can you give me a, specific answer to the number of
positions?
Mr. MAW. Yes, we will give you those answers.
Senator PELi.. That will be for the record?
Mr. M.tw. Yes, sir.
Senator PEra.. The record will be kept open for that purpose.
[The information referred to follows:]
UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE.
1+'olt SECLnITY AsSIST.ANCE,
Washington, i.).V., S'epte'mber 17, 197 f.
111)11..1. NV. Ftirt;ittoxT,
(Ioiirvnan. Com.ntittee on Foreign i?ela.tio c,
I .ti. Nena1C, Wiishrrtgton, D.C.
1)n 11a. CHAIRMAN: I am pleased to provide the following information in
response to the questions ported by senator Pelt during the Comtnittee's hearing
Oil September 5.
Wtihin the new Bureau of Oceans and Juternatiomll Environmental and
S ionliIic Affairs there will be it Deputy Assistant secretary for Ocean., and
Fisheries who will concentrate e):clusively on these matters, which the llepart-
niont regard's as estreiuely important. The I)elrartnrent will recommend t) the
President that. HAS official he granted the, personal rank of Ambassador. with the
cuucurreoce of the appropriato Senate authorities. We believe that this tlesigna-
tiou will strengthen the Band of the Deputy Assistant Secretary in international
negotiations for the protection and promotion of Vnited States interest's in
ueeaus atal fisheries. It is our intention in these negotiation's to achieve as arnclt
a?; possible for the U.S, coastal, auaclronions, and highly migratory fi,hing
in forest".
The ])epttty Assistant Secretary for 1)ceans and Fisheries will be in charge
of that portion of the Bureau which will deal with oceans and fisheries matters.
']'hat will include vie present Office of the Coordinator of ocean Arfairr; and
Slleciai Ass islaitt foe Fisheries and Wildlife to the Secretary. and the personnel
of, that ()Ili((,.
The I)epru?tmerrt will he iii it better position to determine the staffing recluire-
rrlents of Ili Bureau when it heconres fully operative. There are currently eighty-
,six jiositi~ars n itborized for the Bureau of which twelve are for fish and wild-
lit,(, activities. 11' possible, and clear priority need is determined, a limited nrtuber
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07f CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
of additional positions will be reprograuuned for the Bureau this year from avail-
able resources. This may prove difficult since, like other Departments, the De-
partment of State 1975 employment ceiling has been reduced by the 0 fice of
Management and Budget. Additional positions will be proposed in the 1976
budget.
In addition to the staff of the Bureau concerned with fisheries activities the
Department contributes $4.0 million to international fisheriescommissions and
councils in which the United States is a member.
In conclusion, I wish to assure you that the Department recognizes the vital
importance of our international oceans and fisheries interests. The establish-
ment of the new Bureau considerably strengthens the Departmeilt's ability to
coordinate foreign policy in these matters, and to give them the attention they
must have. I expect that the names of the principal officers of the Bureau will
be officially conveyed to you in the near future.
Sincerely,
PROVISION FOR INSPECTION TO ENFORCE INTERNATIONAL SEA LAW
Senator PELL. Going back to the more general subject with Ainbas-
sador Stevenson, one of the ideas that we have talked about is the
thought of some day there will be some kind of international sea guard,
along the line of our Coast Guard, some method of enforcing the law
that comes out of the conference in the deep oceans. Have you seen any
signs of movement in that direction? I believe there is provision for
inspection. Who will be doing the inspecting, in your view?
Mr. STEVENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that, in this area
there has been a general feeling that perhaps initially the role of the
international authority would be somewhat more circumscribed and
that when confidence in the authority builds up over the years there
might be the possibility of additional provisions.
There was no specific proposal along the lines of a sea guard. There,
of course, are differences of opinion with respect to whether there
should be international pollution standards, for example, within the
200-mile economic zone, and whether there should be any inspection
by international organization within that zone. We, of course, felt that
there should be minimum international standards and that there
should be some inspection, but I would think that to date the feeling
on enforcement beyond economic zones has been largely concentrated
on enforcement by flag states or in some cases there have been sug-
guestions that there be authorization for states generally to enforce
particular provisions, but there have not been specific discussions of
an enforcement arm of the authority itself.
Senator PELL. While there has not been much progress, and this is
being pointed out in the Conference in Caracas, I introduced a reso-
lution back in the sixties which embodied a treaty of this type, and
had that concept laughed at, the idea that there ever be one such
regime of law for the oceans and seabeds. I find cause for some
rejoicing because at least the idea has become respectable, the nations
are engaging in this task, and it now seems within grasp. I would urge
you to keep your optimism up and we hope success will reward your
efforts.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : BIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
Senator MusxrE. First of all , let me repeat or echo the commenda-
tions that have been expressed to you, Mr. Ambassador and your dele-
gation and your working group in Caracas. I share that impression.
We did lra7e to attend meetings much earlier than 9 o'clock in order
to participate and I was impressed by the work sessions-the obvious
effort that was made to stay on top of the wide range of discussions
and complexity of the issues. It was a very impressive preforniaice,
but still did not resolve our differences on this particular point.
One of the reasons I think it is taking some time to reach an agree-
ment is that you have allowed this summer in Caracas as a time for
nations to assert their own views and their own interests, is that not
true?
Mr. S'rr%-nxsoN. Yes; that certainly was true, although some, moved
beyond prior assertions of their views toward what they thought were
formulas for general agreement. Certainly in the, past, in our own
case, and it is even more true of the Soviet T7nion, we had not ex-
pl icitly endorsed the 200-mile economic zone and that was put forward
in part, in ;he hopes of getting general agreement and not merely in
terms of our own views.
Senator MUSK E. In your statement, you say with respect to future
that you expect a treaty to be available by the end of 1975 and you
say this: "To (to so, however, governments must begin serious nego-
t.iatioos the first day at Geneva, and to prepare for that, they must
during the intersessional period appraise the alternatives, meet in-
formally to explore possible accommodations that go beyond stated
positions.` 'r `"
In other words, there has been ,ab tolerance throughout the (on-
ferenee on the part of all concerned for stated positions which might
differ from what the conferees might hope would be the ultimate
result'?,
Mr. S`rE%nNSON. Yes.
Senator Musxn:. And yet somehow it is inappropriate for the U.S.
Congress in this period of stated positions to state a position?
AIr. STLVENSON. Well, Mr. Chairman
Senator NluSKIF. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Ambassador,
is that you know these 150 nations gathered for a reason. I assume that
on past of most of them it was either good faith determination to pur-
sruo the objective of a new law of the sea, or to create obstructions to
that object eve. In any case, what you have been in the process of doing
is getting :a comprehensive view of where nations stand, what t:-ieir
interests are, whar; they believe are to be done. Personally, I do not
think it is inappropriate for the U.S. Congress in this context to vigor-
ously articulate its view of what our Nation's interests are with re-
spect to our coastal fishery stocks. I cannot believe that kind of vigor-
ous articulation on our part should be any more of a danger to the
prospect for agreement than the vigorous assertion or articulation by
other naticns of their interests, as they see them. They have asserted
territorial seas out to 200 miles, :much more comprehensive than
S. 1988.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/0133 CIA-RDP75B0038OR00050041.0003-3
S. 1988 is not a territorial sea proposal. But on page 15 of the bill
there is this :
The allowable level of traditional foreign fishing shall be set upon the basis
of the portion of any stock which cannot be harvested by citizens of the United
States. Allowed traditional foreign fishing and fishing by citizens of the United
States annually shall not, for any stock, exceed the optimum sustainable yield
for such stock.
When you take that recognition of traditional fishing rights, to-
gether with section 7, which is an encouragement for the negotiation
of those foreign fishing rights within the 200-mile economic zone,
what you have here is not the kind of action that has been taken by
many nations, including Ecuador and Peru, but a much more moder-
ate one and one completely consistent with the position that you your-
self asserted at the Caracas Conference. I just cannot persuade myself
that this kind of assertion on our part of our national interests as we
now see them is inconsistent with our commitment to the objective of
an international rule. Therefore, I do not agree with Mr. Moore's
suggestion that to pursue a unilateral policy is destined to lead to
escalated conflicts in the oceans.
Every nation down there at this point is pursuing its own unilateral
view of what its interests require, and it is only when you move be-
yond that point, the period of meaningful negotiation, that you begin
to develop a shared view. I persuaded myself that working toward a
shared view means that we unilaterally refuse to assert our national
interest.
Let me ask you this question in this connection :
12-MILE LIMIT LAW
We now have by law a 12-mile limit. Wasn't that a unilateral action
enacted by the Congress of the United States, signed into law by the
President of the United States? It goes beyond the 3-mile limit that
was theretofore traditional. Isn't that true?
Mr. MooRE. Senator Muskie, the point you have been making really
does cut to the core of the important distinctions to be made.
It is very important for the United States and the U.S. Congress to
vigorously assert its national interest and its negotiating position, in-
cluding the protection of our coastal stocks, and to make known the
kind of problems that those stocks now have.
I do feel, however, that it would be fundamentally different if our
actions went beyond a vigorous assertion of national interest within
the negotiation to in fact an assertion of a legally binding unilateral
oceans claim.
Most of the nations now participating at the Caracas Conference
have exercised restraint. Like us they are vigorously asserting their
ocean interest in the negotiations. They are not, however, making uni-
lateral ocean claims.
NUMBER OF NATIONS ASSERTING LIMIT BEYOND 12-MILE LIMIT
Senator MUSKIE. How many nations have asserted a limit, whether
it is called an economic zone or a territorial sea, beyond the 12-mile
limit?
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 :lA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
Mr. 1lonlu~. l1'itlh respect to fisheries jurisdiction, I believe out of the
I4H to 1:c) nations participating, th.re are roughly 30 or so that are
bey'owl h, riles on fishing jurisdiction.
Seuato;~ ?)1QSxII;. llow many of the 149 are landlocked?
Mr. ;Al)tortr:. There are 1.19-120 coastal states and the rest are land-
locked. Uut of those 119 or 12,0 coastal states approximately between
30 and 40 l: ave made fisheries claims beyond the present 12-mi ~e I in) it.
;+enatoe ~luslax. Their action in asserting that has not torpedoed
the conference
Mr. Aloo.aE They have in most cases asserted this sometime ago.
Sc n rtor ,1IUSKIE. We should have a cted earlier.
Mr. 1(,ORr No, it is the same problem if they asserted jurisdiction
rather. hut it is more acute now. And it would kre notch more acute if
it were the United States with its present role iii the world which rr.ade
this claim rather than many of the smaller nations which have made
such clainns.
n;.5. RESTRAINT IN NOT SLE]U G3 200-MILE TERRITORIAL SEA
Senator Musrcn;. Let me make the point on S. 1988. Ecuador and
Peru have asserted a 200-mile territorial sea. We have not done that in
S. t9~s'4. I s not our restraint on that point in this bill an important con-
tribution to the objective you are seeking on this very issue? You as a
delegation are down there saying we do not want a territorial sea, and
here, the Congress would be saying ):crnen, we do not want a territorial
sea.I IS that not important backing in the negotiations?
Mr. 11orlu,. The signal thit other nations would perceive is that
the 1'nited States, even though it has exercised restraint of a sort in
not going to a 200-mile territorial sea we have always sought vigor-
onsly to avoid, certainly has, nevertheless, acted unilateral in a way
which would be contrary to the recent International Court of Justice
decision. and 1 think in their -Eutarre claims they would not feel particu-
larly restrained by the nature Of our claim.
Senator Mersn1E..Let me say this, then I will yield to Senator Case.
They vertai,nly will get that signal, if that is the signal Vol] people
say they ought to get. If you people say, look, what the Congress is
doin< is supporting the position we have advanced in Caracas, that,
is going t,,) be a cifl'erent signal, but you are telling them here in this
hearing that the signal they are going to take is that we a"e acting
rueilaierally with the risk of torpedoing the conference.
IIIFFEKEN( T LN ACTIONS PRONDSED I"d MAGNUSON'S LEri'lar, ENACTMENT
OF S. 14)88
S?nuttor CASE. Why would the passage of this bill be a bad signal.
when the action that you have announced that you are going to take in
the letter to Senator Magnuson w,.)uld not be a bad signal ?
Mr. MlooRR. The action that we have taken in the letter to Senator
Magnuson is completely consistent with the U.S. legal obligr,tions
which are widely accepted internationally and which are now binding
oD the principal states that fish off the U.S. coast. They are simply
m ea sit res to provide further protect ion to our Continental Shelf fishery
resources which :ire recognized as under U.S. jurisdiction.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/076 : 5CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
Senator CASE. You mean by an international agreement with the
countries involved?
Mr. MOORE. That is right, yes, an agreement-
Senator CASE. I can see a formal difference here but I am not sure
there is a substantive difference because the action proposed, as Sena-
tor Muskie points out, is it not a reasonable conservation measure, in
effect ?
Mr. MOORE. There is no question that some of our stocks are in severe
difficulty off the east and west coast of the United States. We are not
at all questioning the severity of the problem, though we do feel that
interim measures offer substantial promise in the interim period in
relieving those problems. But, there is a fundamental difference were
we to go beyond that and claim jurisdiction which is clearly not recog-
nized internationally and particularly not recognized by those nations
such as the Soviet Union and Japan, which are fishing off our coast.
With respect to the earlier extension of the U.S. fisheries' jurisdic-
tion from 3 miles to 12 miles, I believe again this was done in a situa-
tion comparable to that of the new procedures we have announced to-
day in the letter to Senator Magnuson. The 1958 Geneva Convention
on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone provides in article 24
for a 12-mile contiguous zone. In addition, at the 1960 Geneva Con-
ference, the second U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, there was
overwhelming support for 12-miles fisheries jurisdiction. A limit of
S plus 6, of 6 miles for the territorial sea phis 6 miles for fisheries, was
defeated not because of the difficulty With extending fishery juris-
diction to 12 miles, but because of difficulty by many nations in accept-
ing a 6-mile territorial sea. Many nations at the time we extended the
jurisdiction to 12 miles, had at least a 12-mile fishery contiguous zone.
It had become part of customary international law that one can have
a 12-mile fishery contiguous zone.
STATE DEPARTMENT'S POSITION WHEN I2-MTLE ZONE LEGISLITLON
WAS PENDING
Senator MusliIE. That was not the position taken by the State De-
partment when that legislation was pending. I recall being very
strongly pressured by the State Department not to support that uni-
lateral legislation. The arguments given were much the same we heard
here this morning, and yet we proceeded. Now you tell me that it wa c
recognized at this point anyway
CONSENSUS FOR 200-MILE LIMIT
You are also telling us this morning that there is a broad consensus
for the 200-mile limit. If there is, why should they take such offense
if we announce that we support that under legislation that will give
way to international agreement, if that is indeed the consensus?
Mr. Moor,I.. There are, of course, several other additional distinc-
tions to be drawn between the two circumstances. One is that we are
considering this bill during the negotiation of perhaps the most im-
portant multilateral conference since the founding of the U.N. system.
That was not the case in the earlier extension.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
66
Senator MLsxu,. It is always a question when you play your hole
card,
dlr. STEVENSON. I would like from the standpoint of the negot:,a-
tions, to come back to one point. While upward of 1.00 countries have
indicated the 12-mile territorial sea and 200-mile economic zone is the
cornerstone of general agreement, many of them, including ourselves
and the Sov-et Union and the United kingdom and others, have made
it very clear that it is only in the context of a general agreement that
they are willing to accept this. I think that looking at some specific
issues, if, for example, we establish unilaterally an economic zo:ae,
even though it, is clearly subject to the international regime subse-
quently agreed upon, other countries, particularly some African coun-
tries, Will feel free to establish unilaterally an economic zone, that goes
much further than ours does. One of the problems that we are having
right now in negotiating the economic zone is that, while there is very
general acceptance of the idea, there remains very serious differences as
to the content: whether there should be any limitations whatsoever
on coastal state resource management, whether you should have the
full utilization principle, whether in addition to controlling resources
you should also control scientific research, and whether as some sug-
gested, this should also become a 200-mile contiguous zone.
Now, alI of these things are in the negotiations, and while we have
no trouble with the bill in terms of its substance, as it basically, as you
say, reflects what we are talking about getting internationally. if we
do it unilaterally, how can we say to the others it is OK to do this, but
if you go beyond this and put in some of these other features we do
not like, that is wrong and
STEW THAT S. 1988 IS NOT ENOUGH PROTECTION
Senator MIISKTE, Let me put this to you again, Mr. Ambassador.
There are those in this country, especially off the coast of Maine right
now where gill net depredations have taken place, who will not settle
for this bill. They would like a 200-mile territorial sea, so that we can
keep these guys out, and they want to build up the Coast Guard to do
just that. This bill represents a concession from the point of view of
those who think this bill is not protection enough, and I think that is
an important signal to your colleagues in the Conference that the
Congress was able to resolve this issue and not go that far, notw:_th-
standing the domestic pressures. Yet we do not give them that signal?
This is an -important concession. We did not go as far as Equador or
Peru, nor did we go as far as our own fishermen would like us to go.
There is such a thing as whether this is half empty or half full. There
are some pauses in this legislation from the point of view of the con-
ference that I think ought not to be overlooked.
S. 1988 WILL MAKE INTSRNATIONAI NEGOTIATIONS MORE mIFFICu:: r
Mr. STI,NENsoN. I think once we go beyond, here I agree completely
with Professor Moore, suggesting what we would like to have in the
treaty; once we unilaterally say this is what the law is going to b,a, it
is verv difficult to resist other countries doing the same thing, not only
in this area but in. other areas which can affect navigation and other
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/076:CIA7RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
things as well. One of the practical problems is that if they do that,
then domestically it is very hard for them to make some of the agree-
ments that they would have otherwise made. One of the problems right
now with some of the 200-mile territorial sea countries is that, while
they would like to participate more in the negotiations, it is very
difficult once having gone that far domestically to turn back. So I think
it will make it much more difficult to have a successful negotiation if
we do have a good deal of this unilateral action at this time.
UNDERSTANDING S. 1088 IS LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC
PROBLEM
Senator MUSKIE. I will make one further point, then I will yield.
I understand that your position is different than ours. I do not ask
you to endorse this legislation. I would not expect you to. And you can
certainly denounce this legislation. But I find it difficult to believe that
these delegates are so unfamiliar with the parliamentary process as
not to understand that when there is this kind of pressing domestic
problem, Parliaments by their nature will respond.
As I said to that Russian at lunch, yes, we are being hardnosed
because our people are hurting. I think it is our responsibility as a
legislative body to recognize the problems of our people. It is your
responsibility representing the diplomatic branch of our Government
to try to negotiate these agreements, and we wish you well and we
think you are doing a good job. I happen to believe that taking this
action would strengthen and not weaken your hand. Even if you
agreed with me, I would not expect you to say so, given the respon-
sibility that you face next year.
Senator CASE. And vice versa.
Senator MusKIE. Yes.
IIOPE THAT AMBASSADOR STEVENSON WILL REMAIN IN POST
Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I think we have said
all the nice things, and I will not take time repeating them. But with
respect to Ambassador Stevenson, we hope you will continue to make
the sacrifice until this treaty is completed.
COASTAL STATES RIGIITS OF FISIIERY RESOURCES IN CONTINENTAL
SIIELF
Mr. Ambassador, with reference to a point made by Senator Stevens
in regard to the Continental Shelf beyond the 200-mile economic zone,
you pointed out that :
The Continental Shelf section provides for coastal state sovereign rights over
exploration and exploitation of Continental Shelf resources. The Continental
Shelf is defined as extending to the limit of the economic zone or beyond to a
precisely defined outer limit of the continental margin.
As to the specifics that you said will be covered in the statement, you
say this only :
The coastal state would have a duty to respect the integrity of foreign invest-
ment on the shelf and to make payments from mineral resource exploitation for
international community purposes, particularly for the economic benefit of
developing countries.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
68
You do not say anything in specific terms about the matter of
conservation of fishing resources it that area beyond the 200-mile
economic zone which still is on the Continental Shelf.
Is i here anything in your statement of position relating to coastal
States rights of conservation and fishery resources in that particular
area?
Mr. STEVENSON. Basically, Senator, we have been talking about a
200-mile economic zone as far as fisheries is concerned. With respect
to the Continental Shelf, we have suggested that very reasonable
accommodation between those countries that want, to go to the edge
of the margin when it is beyond 200 miles and those who say even for
3u1nerals you stop at 200 miles, is to provide for that coastal State
jurisdictional, but have a revenue-sharing obligation.
Nov,-, with respect to the fisheries, of course, you (10 have the seabed
sedentary fisheries, although it is not likely there would be many of
those beyond 200 miles. Our concept with respect to fisheries beyond
200 miles has related primarily to the anadroinous species, such- as
salmon. We are suggesting basically a high Seas ban on fishing for
sahnon, because the scientific evidence shows that those fish are best
,"aught when returning to the streams where they originate and, there-
('ore, you can appxy your conservation measures and so fortl(, mach
more effectively because you know what streams those salmon are
going back to.
With with respect to highly migratory fish, which are the other type
of fish that will be most rc:velant beyond 200 miles, we have suggested
more or less iuixed system with tie coastal state managing w-vtlcin
the zone and the flag state beyond, beat where both would be observing
internationally agreed conservation principles, so you would have the
same principles applying to t~iose stocks, which is very necessary, be-
cause they could ice caught beyond 2,00 miles just as easily as within.
So f think it is in everyone's interest to do that.
Now, to the extent that You may have some coastal species that get
beyond 200 miles, we do talk in terms of general duty to cooperate in
developing arrangements, particularly with States that are adjacent,
which is the most real problem. So we are very definitely concerned
about this problem beyond 200 miles.
Senator CASE. Thank you, sir.
I wanted to get your position ill the record in View of what Senator
Stevens said.
NEW S'EOCFA)L1;J IN SENATOR _nA( NCSON'S LEVL1i1, EFFECTIVE: IN
90 DAYS
In the. letter to Senator Magnuson, why (10 you not propose putting
the effective date of these new procedures December 1974 instead of
11075?
Mr. Mooiu:. The reason that we are having the 90-day grace period
before the regulations go into effect is that they really will have a
potentially severe effect on foreign fishing
Senator CAsz. Ninety-days or a year and 90 days?
Mr. MoonE. Ninety days. There has been an error in the letter. It
should real December 5, 1974, rather than 1975.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/070t CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
Senator CASE. You mean the date should be 1974 and this copy is a
mistake?
Mr. MOORE. That is correct.
Senator CASE. There is no doubt about that at all? You all agree,
gentlemen?
Mr. MooRE. The new procedures that went into effect and were
announced today on the Continental Shelf in the letter to Senator
Magnuson will go into effect 90 days from today. That is a typo-
graphical error, it is an error in the original as well as the copy.
Thank you for calling it to our attention.
Senator CASE. Not at all. You mean 90 days from now?
Mr. MOORE. From today. And diplomatic notes will go out quickly
to the affected foreign nations.
Senator lfuSKIE. I would like to express my appreciation to Senator
Case.
Mr. STEVENSON. We are glad there are some skillful lawyers here.
Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much.
Senator CASE. I have to go because I have a date with a constituent
at 1 o'clock and one with you, Senator Muskie, at 1:15. I leave these
gentlemen in the hands of my colleagues here and I know that we are
all working toward a very common purpose.
Senator PELL. Thank you.
DESTRUCTION Or GILL NETS
Senator MUSKIE. I have one question I would like to put on the rec-
orci and that is in connection with this destruction of gill nets that
is taking place. It does not sound like a very important problem, but
these nets cost our fishermen from $3,500 to $6,000 apiece and most of
them have had to go to the local banks to borrow the money to buy
them. VAThen they are destroyed, the resources of most of these fisher-
men are such that they cannot get another loan. There is no insurance
coverage, there is no way for them to effectively pursue their claims.
A. lot of this destruction takes place in the course of night fishing when
it would be impossible to identify the offender, under any circum-
stances, and so this just raises havoc with the morale of these people
along the coast. }Iardly a week passes that there are not more inci-
dents. Most of them protect their nets with radar reflectors. They
assure me they are easily detectable, especially on the modern radar
equipment that is carried by these huge foreign factory ships. In addi-
tion, most of them comply with the fixed gear system that has been
created under which the fishermen notify the Coast Guard where their
nets are located and the Coast Guard sends that information out over
radio stations that can be monitored by foreign fishing fleets. Notwith-
standing all of these precuations, the depredation goes on.
I am simply not going to leave those people without recourse. They
have absolutely no way of protecting themselves or recovering from
the loss out of their own resources. I say if their Government is in-
terested in protecting the fleet on the seas it has an obligation to pro-
tect them, and that is why I make such a point of this. At the very
time when these nations are urging restraint on our part with respect
to legislation, they allow their nationals to roam up and down our
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : IA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
coast doing this damage to our people. By permitting that they are
doing more to threaten this Conference than we are with this leg~sla-
tion.
I want to make that as a matter of record, hoping that, some of this
will get back to some of these governments who are so disturbed about
this legislation. Let them control their nationals. The ICNAF agree-
rnent is en:Forced by flag states. What good is that ellforcemerit if flag
states will not run down their nationals in this situation to protect
our people? That is meaningless. So what I would like to ask, I have
protested this to the Secretary of State and he communicated this in
an appropriate way to you people at the Conference. I realized that
this Conference is not the place to get involved in these problems but,
nevertheless, I wanted to get the message through to you. Is there
anything you can tell me this morning that has any interest or even
help to these fishermen in this situation about steps that have been
taken?
Senator PELL. I would like to associate myself with Senator 11Ius-
kie's question. Our own fishermen are suffering in exactly the same
way and being demoralized and put out of business.
Mr. POLLOCK. Senator, with some countries we have some negotia-
tions for settlement of situations of this nature. We do not have them
with all nations. If we did have them with all nations, we would still
have a problem. If we do not know who did it, if it happens in the
middle of the night, the gear is torn up, which nation are you going to
go to and say we want some compensation? I do not know what the
solution to that would be unless there was Federal legislation to pro-
tect them. I do not know how you would do it unless you had every
nation, and I do not think they would volunteer to do this, put money
into a pool for compensation. It would not happen.
POSSIBILITY OF U.S. GOVERNMENT PAYING FISHERMEN'S CLAI.4IS FOR
EQUIPMENT
Senator MusKIE. One thing I think we could consider, and this idea
occurs to me out of our lend-lease experience in World War Il--why
not enact legislation under which these fishermen would assign their
claim. to the Federal Government in return for full reimbursement?
The Federal Government is in a much better position to enforce those
claims than the fishermen. It would have the responsibility. The cLaims
may be worthless if you did not get the evidence. If the c]'.aims are
worthwhile, who ought to stand that, the fishermen or Federal Gov-
ermnent? It seems to me that that is an approach that is worthy of
some consideration. How about the Coast Guard? Have you reviewed,
or is it your responsibility to review, the steps taken by the Coast
Guard? I know they have tried, and I am raising the question. I am
not being critical, but they are undermanned and underequipped to
do this job.
Mr. MOORE. Without responding to your very interesting suggestion
on possible new approaches to the problem, there are some additional
facts that have come to my attention this morning, that I might con-
vey to you on this.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/071 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
It is our understanding that this incident was one which occurred
on August 12, approximately 28 miles off the New Hampshire coast.
We also understand that the National Marine Fisheries Service Re-
gional Office in Gloucester has been assisting the fishermen in filing
their claims, that the NMFS has a series of affidavits they have been
asked to hold until next week, that the Coast Guard has investigated
the claims of damage over the period of August 10 to 20 and is work-
ing with the National Marine Fisheries Service on this.
It is also our understanding that according to witnesses present, the
damage was caused by West Germany fishing vessels, but we have not
yet identified the specific vessels, and we will be working to cooperate
through the Coast Guard and the NMFS with the fishermen affected
in this case.
Senator MUSKIE. In that particular case, the foreign ship fishing
vessel involved was badly in need of a paint job, it was peeling, so
some of the letters or numbers on the identification were missing.
Is there any way of trying to run down that kind of fragmentary
evidence to nail down the offender? If there is not, it is almost hope
less to ever try to recover a claim in these cases.
Mr. MooRE. I simply do not know the answer to that or the present
state of the investigation.
Senator MUSKIE. I will pursue it in other ways.
Mr. POLLACK. What you were talking about was a more generalized
problem, not the specific one where you cannot identify. I think where
you can identify action can be taken, but I think it is a serious problem,
and I think perhaps the only solution is a Government responsibility.
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT WILL HAVE ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM
Senator MUSKIE. If we have an international agreement, we are,
still going to have the enforcement problem, are we not?
Mr. POLLACK. Yes, sir.
Senator MISKIE. And that problem is going to have to be shared by
our own Coast Guard even as it would be under unilateral legislation.
We probably would have to have a strong national enforcement arm
with an international agreement as we would with unilateral legisla-
tion, would we not?
Mr. MOORE. Yes.
Mr. STEVENS. You are absolutely correct, and this is one of the ad-
vantages of this interim procedure we have been talking about, this
will begin to strengthen Coast Guard capability when we do have in-
ternationally agreed 200-mile zones, so they will be able to discharge
those requests.
PROPOSAL IN LETTER TO SENATOR MAGNUSON APPLAUDED
Senator MusKIE. Incidentally, may I applaud that letter? I think
it does not go as far as the legislation, but it does indicate concern and
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410003-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410003-3
itnticates a; determination to protect our people and so on. As far as it
goes, l would think that it is a very useful initiative.
Senator PELL. 1 share Senator Muskie's approval of this proposal.
As T understand it, it deals primarily with creatures of the Continental
Shelf.
Senator Case has a question lie would like answered concerning con-
servation lie will send up to you.
I'l`11e. in.-orination referred to follows:]
I;ESPONSE OP DEPARTMENT OF S''ATE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTION SUBMITTED BY
SENATOR CASE
( iu'xtioaa.--Matters related. to environmental protection seem to be lagging
lip-hind progress on matters concerning the development of the ocean's resources.
I'articuhil y if we are going to have provisional application, I am concericed that
eavironmental protection issues proceed apace with development of ocean re-
sources istt..es. Will the Delegation place increased emphasis on environmental
protection to make up any deficiency? Will the need for environmental protection
he taken into consideration in connection with provisional application?
1tesponse-The negotiations on protection of the marine environment did not
noire as rapidly as we would have liked in Caracas. Although several draft
articles we:'e produ