We have been very successful with Japan in the past in achieving results, and I think the concept of using the big stick will be counterproductive. That is a matter of international judgment, and I am not entirely inexperienced in negotiating on matters with foreign countries.

Mr. PELLY. Of course, in this prepared legislation there is a provision whereby the Secretary of State could declare this law inoperative if there was a convention agreed to by the various nations that was deemed to be fair and satisfactory. I notice that very recently in Japan the Japanese Fisheries Society has called on the Japanese to abandon the doctrine of the principle of abstention. It seems to me this legislation would give greater force to our negotiators to work out a mutually fair and satisfactory agreement.

Mr. HARRIMAN. If I were charged with negotiation, I would feel very much handicapped by this bill. I say that with due respect. Other countries have national pride, and the idea of placing an embargo on a product if they do not behave is not one conducive to a good spirit of negotiation. The imports of $2.7 million worth of salmon, compared to our exports of $1.7 billion to that country, is not a club which would be effective. Aside from that, the method of putting embargoes as a club leads to retaliations. Other countries can play the same game, sir. I think generally our country has been successful because we have not believed in that type of diplomacy.

We disagree not with the objective, but in terms of how to achieve the objective. I do not think this bill would achieve what you hope it would. It might well not only not accomplish the objective but jeopardize this whole principle of restriction, voluntary restriction, which the Japanese have been among the foremost nations in conforming to.

Mr. PELLY. It is pretty hard for an American fisherman whose livelihood depends on the fishing resource to understand the attitude of the State Department over fish when protective arrangements have been worked out for the textile industry. They have to worry, year in and year out, about the preservation of this resource.

Mr. HARRIMAN. I am speaking not only of textiles, but I submit the map, which indicates that the overwhelming majority of the American salmon fishing is totally excluded voluntarily from catch by the Japanese. That can be jeopardized. It is a convention that has lasted for 10 years but now can be amended or can be repealed entirely by unilateral action. This was carried on by negotiations which I had nothing to do with, but it was certainly a very important measure in protecting the salmon industry, as such.

Mr. PELLY. I certainly would agree with you, Mr. Secretary, that it would be preferable if a satisfactory conservation arrangement could be worked out by all nations rather than using a stern measure such as this. It has not worked. The Japanese have refused to recognize the research and scientific proof given them that there are young, immature salmon being taken by these 10-mile-long nets on the high seas where our fishermen have been cut down to just a few days fishing. It is a difficult problem to resolve.

Mr. HARRIMAN. I do not want to minimize the importance of the bill, but the fact of the matter is that the Japanese percentage of catch of this fish has gone down. It is one type of salmon. Therefore, I cannot agree that, by and large, the Japanese have not indi

cated a willingness to cooperate in the whole problem of American salmon. We do not own the Pacific Ocean, sir.

Mr. PELLY. That is right. No fish has an American flag on it. I wonder where you got the figure that the Japanese are not taking as many fish percentagewise as they were. It simply started with nothing and has gone up until they are taking a great deal more in the way of fish than we are ourselves of our own Pacific coast-spawned fish. I think we will draw those figures out from the Department of the Interior witnesses. It was about 6 million last year.

Mr. HARRIMAN. This particular type of Bristol salmon has been reduced in the last four seasons.

Mr. PELLY. The cycles go up and down, and when the number of fish go down, there are not as many. In big years the Japanese have not hurt our runs, as far as we know, and in smaller years they have practically put them out of business.

Mr. HARRIMAN. I am not trying to defend the Japanese. I am only trying to say the fact that this committee should consider is that there has been a very considerable restraint on the part of the Japanese not only in textiles but in salmon.

Mr. PELLY. I am glad we can agree on the principle of abstention and glad that our Department of State takes that position.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Lennon.

Mr. LENNON. No questions.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Van Pelt.

Mr. VAN PELT. Was this always a historical fishing ground for the Japanese, the basis of this convention?

Mr. HARRIMAN. I am not familiar. Perhaps you had better ask the members of the Department of the Interior what the experience was prior to this convention. Of course, under international law the fisherman of any country can fish outside of the 3-mile limit. Therefore, this abstention from catching salmon east of 175° W. is a voluntary action.

I am not familiar with what they have done in the past. Without this convention, they could come all along the Alaska coast and the coast of the State of Washington and fish for salmon outside of the 3-mile limit.

Mr. VAN PELT. The reason I ask the question is several years ago this subcommittee held a series of hearings on the west coast and in Alaska. This subject came up because our own fishermen were restricted because of conservation. While they did admit the Japanese were adhering to the convention, the taking of small fish did come up repeatedly in all the hearings.

Also it was indicated there were other historic fishing grounds because the Japanese have been fishermen. I was just wondering what has happened to those fishing grounds.

Mr. HARRIMAN. I would like to have someone else answer that question. I am not an expert on the matter of the past history of the salmon fishery.

I want to make it clear that neither I nor the Department is opposed to achieving the objectives of these bills through negotiations rather than punitive legislation.

Mr. VAN PELT. That is all.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Hagen.

Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Secretary, it is my understanding that this meeting of Cabinet ministers would include the subject of fisheries.

Mr. HARRIMAN. I have not seen the agenda, but I have always assumed the subject of fisheries would be discussed. Secretary Udall will be there, and it can be placed on the agenda. The matters of particular importance will be discussed. I would assume the subject of fisheries would be discussed, but I cannot say since I have not seen the agenda.

Mr. HAGEN. Are there additional parties to this convention other than the Japanese and the United States?

Mr. HARRIMAN. Canada is the only other country.

Mr. HAGEN. Do the Russians fish in these same waters?

Mr. HARRIMAN. The Russians have fished in the same waters, and they are under no restraint.

Mr. TREZISE. The Russians have a coastal fishery, as we do. They do not fish on the high seas for salmon.

Mr. HAGEN. Did I understand you correctly to say that in renegotiating this convention there would be an effort made to extend the abstentions to the area we were talking about?

Mr. HARRIMAN. I did not understand the question, sir.

Mr. HAGEN. Did I understand you correctly to say that in renegotiating this convention which is going to expire

Mr. HARRIMAN. It does not expire. It was a convention for 10 years, as I understand it, with the right of any of the parties to end the convention on a year's notice.

Mr. HAGEN. The Japanese have not indicated they wished to end it; is that correct?

Mr. HARRIMAN. They have not given any notice so far. They can give notice, I think it is June of 1963, they have the right to give it; but I sincerely hope they will not. I hope, in fact, we can improve, from the standpoint of American fishing of particularly salmon, improve the situation along the lines that this bill hopes to achieve. Mr. HAGEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. HARRIMAN. May I point out that Alaska has many interests in expanding her trade with Japan. It is not just the older States. Over half of Alaska's export trade goes to Japan and every indication is Alaska's export trade can be enormously increased as Japan's economy increases and her demand for raw materials, which Alaska has, increases. So that Alaska itself has other very important commercial interests.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Gross.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Harriman, I start from the premise that every Member of Congress wants good relations with Japan, but that does not mean we give away any of our natural resources or any of our rights to the Japanese. I think the State Department through the years has gone much too far in this business of being afraid of injuring somebody's feelings somewhere along the line and through that process deprived the American people of certain of their rights and certain of their resources.

Do I understand correctly that this subject is not, to your knowledge, even on the agenda of the December convention?

Mr. HARRIMAN. Not to my knowledge is it on the agenda. I have assumed it would be, but I have been asked the definite question whether it is to be discussed. I cannot answer it because the agenda has not been made up. I have no reason to believe it will not be on the agenda. The international rights are for international fishing