Mr. DOWNING. Well, H.R. 12233 which is the deep-seabed legislation has been approved by the Subcommittee on Oceanography and I hope it will soon be taken up by the full committee.

Can we expect any administration comments on the present version of the bill?

Mr. MOORE. Our present position as I indicated is one of reviewing carefully this legislation and when that review has been completed we will be in touch with this committee.

Mr. DOWNING. I know my time is almost up but let me wind up by saying I do not believe there is any member of this committee who does not believe these things should be resolved by an agreement in the international community.

I think that is the way it should be done, but our problem is one of time and one of sincere doubt that the Law of the Sea Conference will result in anything mutually agreed on.

We have to weigh whether we are going to sit around and wait through Geneva and then consider where is the next stop to be to made Caracas again?

But let me ask you: How long must we wait, Mr. Moore? That is the problem.

Mr. MOORE. The point is certainly well taken and as Ambassador Stevenson indicated this morning I think time is of the essence.

We have made this point very clear and will do everything that we can to insure that there is adherence to the General Assembly schedule which would mean a treaty concluded no later than 1975. If the nations put their minds to it, if they take it as seriously as I believe they will at the Geneva session, there is no reason that we cannot conclude the treaty on schedule.

Mr. DOWNING. Thank you.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Pritchard?

Mr. PRITCHARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me ask a question that is very close to my district first so in my ramblings I will not forget it in my 5 minutes.

Is my understanding correct that the U.S. position is that there should be a total abstension of fishing for salmon on the high seas? Is that the position that you are taking, Mr. Moore?

Mr. MOORE. The position that we have taken in the draft articles that have recently been submitted at Caracas is that there should be no fishing for salmon beyond the territorial seas of the host state in the absence of agreement of the host state.

Mr. PRITCHARD. Going beyond the 12 miles?

Mr. MOORE. Yes. It is a better way of stating what we had earlier planned in the converse; that is, the coastal state would have management control and preferential rights over anadromous species throughout the range of those species on the high seas.

We think it really is more meaningful and understandable in the negotiations to indicate that for a variety of sound conversation and management reasons there should be no fishing for salmon stocks beyond the territorial sea of the host state without the consent of that state.

Mr. PRITCHARD. Now, in your speech here both you gentlemen particularly you, Mr. Moore, talked about the requirement of flexibility in the different country's positions if you were going to arrive

at agreement. I think it would be perfectly fair to assume that the fishermen are very worried about your flexibility and how it might affect the salmon part of this Law of the Sea Treaty.

Now, is this position a negotiable one?

Are you planning to modify this position?

Mr. MOORE. Well, Congressman, first with respect to whether our coastal fishermen need be concerned of any possible flexibility in this area, the thrust of the negotiations is so very strongly in the direction of coastal state management jurisdiction over coastal stocks that if we can resolve the other issues this issue is not in doubt.

The question of special treatment for anadromous species is a more difficult issue in the negotiations in the sense that there is not the same degree of overwhelming concurrence on any one position.

We feel, however, there is substantial support for our position on host state control of salmon. Ambassador Stevenson might more appropriately answer this one.

Mr. PRITCHARD. I would like to have Ambassador Stevenson

comment.

Do you think this will become a negotiable item?

Ambassador STEVENSON. I think the way you put the question. makes the answer more specific than I think is really necessary in terms of protecting the interest that we have involved here.

It is a very important part of our policy to protect that salmon interest. We have already made a slight change in the article which I think the members of our delegation representing the salmon. industry understood and approved of.

Initially, we talked about host state control over salmon throughout their migratory range.

Well, this ran into a lot of opposition not only from the Japanese and others, but from people who said well, really why are you asserting this control over all of the oceans. We accomplished exactly the same result by our changed position of having a ban, that is, a high seas ban on fishing for salmon but it was much more negotiable. The change in position that we think worked out with the delegation will achieve the real interest you are interested in and certainly, we are going to consider it.

The protection of that interest is one of our fundamental objectives. Mr. PRITCHARD. First, I want to say this. I have great faith in you gentlemen.

Ambassador Stevenson, I really commend you for your leadership, and I know that the extension of these battles is not in your personal interest. You would like to get back to your regular work and back to your law practice and stop being the Ambassador which you have been for a number of years. I know it is not your actions that are delaying this nor is it in your personal interest. I want to commend. you for the work that you have done.

Ambassador STEVENSON. I wish you could convince the Wall Street Journal of that.

Mr. PRITCHARD. Well, that is another story. I have been concerned because I feel that our priorities may be a little wrong. I have felt that our priorities run in this list-first oil and second, the fisheries.

It may be that at the present moment this looks like the proper priority. However, I think in the long run that it is not in the Nation's best interest. I am sure you do not agree with that so I will accept that.

Second, I would like to know if somebody here can explain the implications for our Navy in this thing without divulging all the

secrets.

Ambassador STEVENSON. You mean why this conference is important to the Navy?

Mr. PRITCHARD. Why are we giving this great weight to the naval considerations? I think they are way over-balanced. But what are the considerations you are giving?

Ambassador STEVENSON. Well, mobility I think in one word is the most important single factor, the ability of our Navy and our Air Forces to navigate the seas without interference.

Coming to the more important specifics, I will mention first the importance to our whole strategic picture of our nuclear submarine deterrent; I think the ability of our submarines to navigate without surfacing is very, very critical.

I think the ability to get through important straits such as the Strait of Gibraltar has been very critical.

I think that we also have some related national security objectives, for example the whole question of being able to transport oil without interference is very critical.

I think these are critical U.S. interests and our whole effort has been to advance the whole complex of U.S. interests. I do not think that if we take the international, as opposed to the unilateral approach, that there is any reason why we have to sacrifice one to get the other. I think the problem is, though, that if we just go ahead unilaterally the navigational interests are probably not going to be adequately taken care of.

Mr. PRITCHARD. Well, is this position not also shared by the other major powers, this same concern for freedom of access?

Ambassador STEVENSON. Yes.

Mr. PRITCHARD. So all of the major powers are of a similar mind in this?

Ambassador STEVENSON. That is right, but I assume the question you are asking is if it is that important to them why does this not mean it is less important to us because they would be hurt just as much. I think the answer to that, if you look at the United States and you see where our strategic interests are, is that it is very, very important that we do have this mobility that we need.

I think since we basically are talking about security and not wanting to really get into actual hostilities I think everyone realizes that to keep the situation the way it is, it is very important that there be a strategic balance and that is what I think we get by having the present situation and the particular improvements we would like to see in it through this treaty.

Mr. PRITCHARD. But it seems inconceivable to me that when the major powers of this world are of a like mind that some nation just by unilaterally mandating it could block off these straits.

Ambassador STEVENSON. Well, the question of course that you are asking is, if we could act ourselves unilaterally over coastal resources, why we could not use our armed strength to prevent other people from acting unilaterally in other areas such as impeding transit of straits? Mr. PRITCHARD. In concert with other major nations.

Ambassador STEVENSON. I think in an extreme case you are undoubtedly right; we might be prepared to use armed force where it is

something very critical to U.S. interests, but the trouble is over time your interests get worn away because a very friendly government in a particular area does something which they could not do under this treaty but they do it under claim of changing international law and unilateral right and you give up something that later on is very, very important.

It is just very, very difficult to take that critical decision to use armed force to enforce some of these rights.

I think you have had the same situation in the past where there has been criticism of our unwillingness to use armed force because maybe you have had situations on the one hand where you have had very friendly governments and we say we do not want to offend the very friendly government and another government that is very unfriendly and practically the opposite concerns are expressed, yet we do not move.

So the use of armed force to enforce our rights is not the answeras it was in the 19th century. Wholly apart from the United Nations Charter prohibition against using force, it is a very politically costly way of achieving our objectives.

Mr. PRITCHARD. I know other members have questions and I will stop here.

Mr. MURPHY [presiding]. Mr. Young of Alaska.

Mr. YOUNG. Let me apologize for jumping ahead, Mr. Chairman,. but I do have a plane to catch.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Young of Alaska is recognized.

Mr. YOUNG. I do not know how far along we are but of course, my main interest as you well know is in security but also in the fish production and the United States of America and more so in the State of Alaska. I am also concerned about what has happened in the past years, apparently under your jurisdiction. Are you content to let this continue to happen until our stocks are depleted?

Fishery resources will continue to be one of the great contributors to the economy of our State and I have three questions I want on the record, one way or the other, and I will sit down. I understand your present position would implement a total abstention principle on fishing of salmon on the high seas.

Ambassador STEVENSON. Except with the consent of the state of

origin.

Mr. YOUNG. What I am wondering is, do you foresee in the future any modification of the high seas fishing principles, modification at all as far as state rights are concerned?

Ambassador STEVENSON. I, in essence, answered this question

earlier.

I think that the substantive position is we want to protect the salmon interests. There have been modifications made in consultation with the Alaskan and other salmon representatives on the delegation before we moved to this high seas ban. We thought that was more negotiable than trying to assert coastal state control throughout the whole area and it achieves the same objective. We, in fact, made that move but I think the importance of protecting the salmon interests is one that we have expressed very strongly and I think we are not alone in that view.

The Canadians, the Russians, the Norwegians, Ireland and a. number of other countries have a comparable interest.

Mr. YOUNG. When it gets down to an economic zone do you foresee the possibility of the State Department trading off?

I am asking this on my own. I want it for the record that I am asking these questions on my own. On the economic zone do you foresee the possibility of trading off rights of the states involved, whatever you want to call it, shipping channels or whatever, for a continuation of the decimation of the salmon industry in the high seas, especially in the Alaskan area?

Now, you know and I know that they are fishing with monofilament nets which is against our regulations and we have seen nets at least 15 miles long and 400 fathoms deep cut loose. We cannot continue to have that kind of activity and we have been under your jurisdiction for many years. Are they saying we are not going to let you go through X, Y, Z straits unless you let us use this kind of net or are you going to let them continue to take the fish out of the sea?

Ambassador STEVENSON. I think here we are not speaking just about the State Department.

We are basically speaking about our Law of the Sea policy where we have the whole executive branch represented which is working under John Norton Moore. Basically in the negotiations we are representing the President and the executive branch.

I think that clearly what we are attempting to achieve internationally will remedy just what you are talking about.

We do want effective coastal state management and enforcement but we want the international basis for doing that and I think that once we have that, hopefully the funds and arrangement for the necessary enforcement will be forthcoming.

I think, incidentally in that connection the question was asked this morning on the Coast Guard's capability and expenses and we do have representatives of the Coast Guard here who can give you more detail on that.

Mr. YOUNG. I am quite aware of that as I sit on that committee also. But when you say forthcoming, what are you looking at for a time schedule? I heard this same song 10 years ago.

Ambassador STEVENSON. Well, I can appreciate this very much, that you have the feeling that people come and say just 1 more year, that it is the same old song. All I can say is that I have not been in it all that time, but my own very strong view is that this next year is the critical year. I think it is not just a question of taking more time and having that additional cost in terms of losing our fish and having them decimated, I think next year is really the opportunity to get this treaty.

From then on it will be increasingly difficult because you have comparable problems in many other countries and I do not think they are going to stand still, so I think this is the critical year. That being so, naturally I am concerned with anything that might affect our opportunity to maximize the possibility of success.

Mr. YOUNG. One last question: As you well know there is a piece of legislation now before the House and the Senate and I expect the Senate to act on that bill contrary to the Foreign Affairs Committee's recommendations. You have read S. 1988 and what is the striking difference between the Senate bill and the Law of the Sea Conference? What is the basic objection to that bill and what you are trying to do in the Law of the Sea Conference?