58 



Let me come back to implementation. There is a tension between 

 a little of what you said, Mr. Burney, and what you said, Mr. Ben- 

 ton. For example, take the issue raised by Senator Stevens and 

 others about the impact on Alaska of the United States subscribing 

 to binding arbitration for international fisheries agreements. In 

 your comments, Mr. Burney, you basically said there has to be 

 some kind of international intrusion or we are not going to resolve 

 these problems. 



Do you see a way of balancing this need, Mr. Benton? If we are 

 going to ask other nations to give something up and we are going 

 to ask them to agree that there is going to be a limitation, then 

 we also have to submit ourselves to some form of regulation? I sup- 

 pose the key is not to rachet down, that there is only a racheting 

 up to whatever the higher standard is, in the same wav as we have 

 struggled with NAFTA and other agreements. There has to be an 

 acceptance that if somebody's local standard is a higher standard 

 of protection, then that has to be upheld. 



Let me let you deal with it. 



Mr. Benton. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you, and let me use the 

 Central Bering Sea Agreement as an example. Prior to the conclu- 

 sion of that agreement, six countries were involved in the negotia- 

 tions. Four countries were fishing. In about 3 or so years, the fish- 

 ing nations depleted the stock out in the Central Bering Sea to vir- 

 tual commercial extinction. It is just not profitable to go out there 

 and fish for those fish anymore. The fish are just not there. 



Prior to the conclusion of that agreement, the United States 

 ceased fishing on that stock inside our zone, and we did that out 

 of our concern for conserving that resource, and also to show the 

 fishing countries "Look, if we are going to engage in these negotia- 

 tions, this is a give-and-take set of negotiations. We will do our 

 part." That concept is reflected in the agreement. 



In the terms of the Central Bering Sea Agreement, no fishing, ei- 

 ther inside or outside the zones, is to occur until the stocks reach 

 a certain biological threshold. Above that threshold, fishing can 

 commence, and there is a formula for determining an allocation of 

 those fish to fishing operations inside the zone and fishing oper- 

 ations in the Donut Hole. So, the notion of compatibility that Mr. 

 Burney was referring to, and that is reflected somewhat in this 

 text, is, I think, embodied probably most clearly in the Central Ber- 

 ing Sea Agreement. 



And I do not disagree with Mr. Burney's statements. Many of 

 them are quite accurate, and our concern is that the text that we 

 have seen at the U.N. is pretty much more of the same. It is as 

 if someone rewrote the Law of the Sea but using slightly different 

 language. It does not really get at the heart of the problem, which 

 I think is what Mr. Burney was saying. 



Senator Kerry. Do you want to comment, Mr. Burney? 



Mr. Burney. Well, I appreciate those remarks. 



Senator Kerry. You do not need to, but if you want to. 



Mr. Burney. Well, I just wanted to say one thing that I think 

 is important. When we are trying to deal with this issue of compat- 

 ibility, I guess we could either seek to reach the lowest common de- 

 nominator or the highest. I would hope the United States would 

 strive to reach the highest. And all I am saying is if it is good 



