Mr. SULLIVAN. Perhaps Mr. Pollock would care to respond. Mr. POLLOCK. Mr. Chairman, may I add a thought for my friend, Mr. Forsythe?

Senator Packwood has introduced in the Senate a measure to reimburse fishermen for their destroyed gear when the proof of precisely who did it cannot be established, and, of course, this is one of the problems that fishermen have off the coast. It might be useful for you to look at that legislation.

Mr. FORSYTHE. I understand it is already headed for the courts and just what the outcome is I do not know, but I know of the incident and I strongly support this inquiry.

New Jersey is very concerned about this whole situation. Our situation is somewhat different than that of many of the New England States because in New Jersey we have a very substantial resort industry. Because of this the problem of the offshore fishing has an impact that is not limited to our fishing industry. Its impact on a State like New Jersey extends to our very important sport fisheries and resort industry and causes damages in the millions of dollars.

I know that my three colleagues from New England are very anxious to question and I will yield to Mr. Cohen.

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Forsythe.

I would like to point out for the record that I believe the State Department originally oppossed the Congress' attempt to declare lobster to be a creature of the shelf.

You based the argument on the contention that other nations would retaliate.

In some of the hearings, Mr. Moore I believe you testified that the Soviet Union had declared scallop to be a creature of the shelf. We inquired as to what kind of retaliation you used against the Soviet Union and you said none.

As a matter of fact it also came out during that particular hearing that we retaliated against other nations who declared 200 miles limit such as those Southern American countries, Brazil in particular by entering into a treaty concerning shrimp which not only recognized their right to protect their species up to 200 miles but called for an appropriation of nearly $400 million to reimburse the Government for the supervision of their waters.

That is the kind of retaliation we have engaged in.

Now I mention all of this because I was very, very interested in your letter.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Cohen, could we confine ourselves to asking questions?

Mr. COHEN. I am going to ask a question.

Mr. CLARK. That is fine, but I believe you came in after Mr. Kyros.
Mr. FORSYTHE. Do I have any more time, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. CLARK. Yes, if it is related to the same question.

Mr. FORSYTHE. I yield to Mr. Cohen.

Mr. COHEN. I was cut off, Mr. Chairman, at noontime by the bells. The question I want to raise with respect to your letter to Senator Magnuson whereby you sort of jointly declare new regulations are going into effect and the question I would ask you is No. 1, when was the declaration of lobster to be a creature of the shelf? When did that act go into effect? What is the effective date of that?

Mr. MOORE. I am sorry, I do not know the precise date.

Mr. COHEN. I believe it was January 8, 1974.

I notice in your letter dated September 5, 1974, to the Senator that here we are 7, 8, 9 months later still talking about proposed regulations, enforcement of a bill that became effective 8 months ago and you even delayed the effective date of these regulations until December and you want to know why the people of this country and the fishermen are upset about what kind of action that this country is taking to protect its resources and I would like to know what your response is to a year's delay in implementing effective control to protect the lobster based upon your letter.

Mr. MOORE. There are major differences-and I think this is very mportant as to the kind of enforcement regulations that we have announced in the letter that went to Senator Magnuson, and those we have had in the past even with respect to lobster or a creature of the shelf.

With respect to the lobster as a creature of the shelf we immediately notified the foreign governments concerned and indicated that we were prepared to take a variety of enforcement measures which were taken under the enforcement procedures that were then in force for the protection of U.S. Continental Shelf fishery resources.

Let me indicate what is new about the new standards. One thing that is new is that they relate to incidental catch of creatures of the shelf pursuant to the use of bottom gear.

The second thing that is different is

Mr. COHEN. No distinction in the law that Congress passed, no distinction between intentional or incidental?

Mr. MOORE. There is I think, a serious problem in terms of the question of the international legal rights of other governments here in terms of boarding them for example, when there has been no observed taking.

Our new procedures broaden very substantially our practices in circumstances where there is a use of bottom tending gear. It is basically intended, I might add, for the greater protection of creatures of the shelf.

Mr. COHEN. In your September 5 letter as I read it, it pertains specifically to shellfish creatures.

Mr. MOORE. That is correct.

Mr. COHEN. That is still 8 or 9 months after the act was passed and signed into law.

Mr. MOORE. Yes. In the interim period there was enforcement based on the existing enforcement procedures and measures that had been applied consistently up until that time.

Mr. COHEN. Which had nothing to do with protecting lobsters as creatures of the shelf because prior to that time there was no such provision.

Mr. MOORE. Well, the new procedures would apply to lobsters as a creature of the shelf, of course, in the period after they were declared to be a creature of the shelf and from this period on when the new regulations go into effect on December 5 there will be even tougher procedures used, but in that interim period after the declaration as a creature of the shelf, we did apply the then normal enforcement procedures that were used.

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask you this: Does the Coast Guard have to check before they take any action with respect to a ship that they view violating international agreements?

Mr. MOORE. Let me defer to the Coast Guard.

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask you whether or not it has come to your attention that the Coast Guard does engage in this practice and has engaged in this practice after the passage of this act by Congress.

Mr. MOORE. I frankly am unfamiliar with the details of our fisheries enforcement practice.

I have concentrated on the law of the sea negotiations but I think either Mr. Sullivan or Capt. Philip Hogue might be able to provide an answer to that.

Captain HOGUE. Congressman, I think the answer to this question is that we do enforce the law, but in the enforcement of the law we do also consult with other governmental agencies, and the State Department.

We do not have NMFS with us concerning the law from their viewpoint but we do consult with them. We do not have to get answers from them, however. We detain.

I think the ultimate answer to your question is that yes, we do consult with them. I think we oftentimes notify them. It is cooperative. We don't find any delays in the enforcement of the law.

Mr. COHEN. What have been your instructions from January of 1974 to the present time with respect to enforcing the law that provides that lobster shall be a creature of the shelf?

What have been the instructions that eminated from the State Department's office?

Captain HOGUE. I will defer to Comdr. John Lynn who is Chief of our Maritime Laws and Treaties Branch.

Commander LYNN. May I, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLARK. Yes.

Commander LYNN. We have had a policy which requires that our commanding officers on the scene report to us by an immediate precedence message, which comes to us very quickly, in all cases where we do not see an intentional taking of any Continental Shelf fishery resources.

Now, it is only in those cases where we do not see an intentional taking, where we have the problem of incidental catch, that we are reporting back, and we have not yet had an actual case that has led to a seizure.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, very much.

Mr. COHEN will have a chance to ask some more questions later on. Mr. KYROS?

Mr. KYROS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, very much. Mr. Moore, I just want to say that when you stated a minute ago that you did not know about our enforcement procedures, that was probably the most accurate statement you have made so far.

Actually, I have never heard such a bewildering array of statements that are so incorrect and I think we will take them from the record and prove their inaccuracies on the floor of the House when this bill comes up.

You sent out a letter on September 5 in the midst of the discussions in the other body about a 200-mile fishing limit indicating how the State Department is going forward with new enforcement measures.

That is sheer nonsense. The law had already been passed about the lobster being a creature of the shelf.

Second, while you were at the Law of the Sea Conference this summer, Ambassador Stevenson, in a well-publicized speech, said that the United States was really in favor of a 200-mile zone. Everyone on the east coast and elsewhere imagined that you, the State Department, had come around to a 200-mile fishing limit: an assumption you did not bother to correct, I might add.

Actually, all you did was take the species approach and apply a zone to it.

What I want to begin to question you on today is what are you really going to do about the enormous problem of our depleted fisheries that are rapidly becoming extinct. The fish stocks can not wait, while manganese nodules, oil and gas will still be there in 5 years. A fishing limit, you know, has nothing to do with the U.S. Ñavy, the straits, submarines, overflights or free passage. It is a simple, clear fishing limit.

Now, we have discussed this over and over again. I am afraid, however, on behalf of my colleagues who have not had the opportunity to go up and down the coast and the gulf and participate in the hearings held by this committee. You have come up with absolutely no solution for our greatest and most depleted resources. I asked you this morning a very simple question and I will start with that one first, that is how much money did it cost us to sponsor our representation in Caracus?

Mr. MOORE. I would like to call on Ambassador Stevenson to answer the last part of your question.

Mr. KYROS. I am only asking what it cost.

Ambassador STEVENSON. You asked me that question this morning, The figure we have is $316,000. This cost does not include the travel cost and per diem for congressmen or for agencies other than the State Department.

Mr. KYROS. The figure I have, Mr. Ambassador, is closer to $750,000 and thank God some Members of the House and Senate went down to watch what was going on.

What are you going to do while we sit here now with East Germany, West Germany, the Soviet Union and all the other foreign ships, chasing everything in sight off our coasts?

What are you going to do this week and next week to protect our depleted fisheries?

Can we really wait for a comprehensive Law of the Sea Convention? What should we do immediately?

Should we forget the whole thing and tell our people not to go to sea anymore?

Ambassador STEVENSON. Well, I think we have made very clear that we are just as concerned about this problem as you are. Mr. KYROS. No one doubts your concern.

Ambassador STEVENSON. I think it is our view that you are going to get more effective results if we have an international agreement. The Soviet Union have said they will accept this. If you have them internationally on board, you are going to have much less of an enforcement problem in the future than you do now.

Mr. KYROS. Mr. Ambassador, I want to stop you at that point. Earlier today it was suggested by you and Mr. Moore that your efforts in the State Department have led the Soviet Union to begin to talk about a 200-mile limit and accede to it.

They read about popular opinion in the United States. They know a 200-mile fishing limit is coming and that they would accede to it if we would make bilateral agreements with them, is that not a fact? Ambassador STEVENSON. In the first place I never said the United States had convinced the Soviet Union to change their position. I announced this was a significant development. Up to now they have fought against establishing a fishing zone beyond 12 miles.

Mr. KYROS. What made them change their mind?

Ambassador STEVENSON. I think what made them change their mind is that they have become very much concerned as we are in getting international agreement so there is no interference with their navigation.

They were very explicit. In fact, in every statement they made either internationally or bilaterally to the countries they talked to about that, that this was only as part of a package in which navigational interests were protected, that they were very much hurting their own fishing interests and no doubt that they are. I think they were very explicit that this was really a determination that their overall interests were favored by sacrificing what had been a very strong fishing interest of theirs in the past.

Mr. KYROS. Let me get back to the question while we are here today concerning the Law of the Sea Convention.

What are you going to do to protect our fisheries like haddock, flounder and menhaden on an interim basis, so they will be left to regenerate?

What do you suggest as a constructive proposal now?

Ambassador STEVENSON. In the first place my responsibility is to get the best international treaty and I think the international treaty we are talking about will solve your problem.

The problem then I think, as someone else said, is strictly one of time.

Mr. KYROS. Yes, sir.

Ambassador STEVENSON. And I think if we can get that international treaty with the Soviet Union and hopefully Japan on board and make it applicable provisionally, I think that that is going to give you the

best result.

As Professor Moore said, the ways and means of taking action now on provisional application of this treaty, I think is something we should turning to right away so that once we do get a treaty it will immediately go into effect.

You will not have this long delay for ratification of a large number of countries.

Mr. KYROS. Well, in 1958 we had that great convention and it took 8 years to ratify just one portion. Other portions are not ratified, no signatories.

It is almost impossible to pull all the countries in unless you and our country takes leadership in this world.

The moment we enact a 200-mile interim limit, we are going to strike bilateral agreements with everyone interested in fishing in our waters.

Yesterday, I had a report that a British ship operating in ICNAF waters had several tons of haddock on board. The Coast Guard stopped the ship. They called the State Department. It took the State Department 2 or 3 days to react, to come back to the Coast Guard, and by