21 



Those are tough questions, but we are all making some progress. 

 The White House is taking a leadership position on this issue to try 

 to bring the agencies together on it. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. I appreciate those comments and that attitude 

 that is apparently beginning to take place. 



In any of our proposed trade negotiations you are not aware of 

 any enforcement capability of managing a resource such as the pol- 

 lock in the Donut Hole that could be enforced. 



Mr. CoLSON. That is correct. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. Thank you. I do appreciate your opening state- 

 ment. 



Mr. Manton. The Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Studds, 

 who had to leave, asked me to ask a question on his behalf. The 

 opening part of the question was sort of rhetorical. 



Unfortunately, we have no one here today to represent the oppo- 

 sition view on NAFO as many of them are at a New England Coun- 

 cil meeting where they will, hopefully, be discussing this very 

 issue. 



If they were here, however, I expect they would voice their oppo- 

 sition based on the idea that accession to NAFO will mean U.S. 

 boats seeking to fish in the NAFO regulatory would be subject to 

 NAFO guidelines and quotas and that U.S. fishermen might not re- 

 ceive a quota at all, even if we do join NAFO. 



The question for Mr. Colson is: How do you respond to those 

 people, particularly from New England, who are facing difficult 

 times ahead in the groundfish fishery, who are looking for alterna- 

 tive sources of income and are opposed to joining NAFO for some 

 of the reasons I mentioned and who care very little about whether 

 we have credibility in pollock negotiations in the North Pacific? 

 Are their concerns good enough reasons to stay out of NAFO? 



Furthermore, based on historical landings, aren't U.S. fishermen 

 entitled to a quota in the regulatory area? Are you confident that 

 if we join NAFO that we will be able to get such a quota? 



Mr. Colson. Mr. Chairman, I have gone to New England. I met 

 with a few New England fishermen in Maine. It was not a happy 

 meeting because that is indeed the attitude that many of them 

 have about this. 



I think that you can make a strong case on the merits of New 

 England fishing interests here. 



As H.R. 3058 notes, there is a strong interest and call for negotia- 

 tions in transboundary resources — those would be the resources ba- 

 sically on Georges Bank — negotiations with Canada to resolve a lot 

 of the management and conservation problems that our own indus- 

 try is suffering in our own zone. 



Certainly, if we want to cooperate and bring the Canadians along 

 toward working together to rebuild groundfish stocks on Georges 

 Bank, which would be of benefit to both U.S. and Canadian fisher- 

 men, we will need to have that generally cooperative situation with 

 Canada. We cannot expect Canada to come along and work with us 

 on fishing issues on Georges Bank while we stay out of the NAFO 

 picture. 



Another point you can make to East Coast fishermen is that it is 

 essential that we maintain a consistent position. They have a large 

 interest in ICCAT. We get letters all the time sometimes from 



