During the 103rd Congress, we have held numerous hearings on the salmon crisis 

 in the Northwest. Our hearing record speaks to virtually every element of the salm- 

 ons' life cycle. The experts have told us there is no panacea. We must address issues 

 of hydropower, habitat, hatcheries, and harvest — the 4 Hs — if we are to restore our 

 native Pacific salmon runs. Today's issue looks at the fourth H — harvest. 



This hearing on the Pacific Salmon Treaty focuses on the joint management with 

 Canada of many of our endangered salmon stocks. We have a long and fruitful tra- 

 dition of cooperation with Canada to conserve and enhance these transboundary re- 

 sovirces. 



For instance, the recovery of Canadian sockeye salmon from the Fraser River is 

 directly attributable to U.S. -Canadian cooperation on habitat restoration and fish- 

 eries management reaching as far back as the 1930's. We in the United States rec- 

 ognized that we were beneficiaries of healthy Fraser River stocks and were, there- 

 fore, quite willing to assist Canada and to sign the historic Fraser River Salmon 

 Treaty. 



Times have changed, but the story-line has not. We now face an even more exten- 

 sive crash of salmon stocks, requiring even greater cooperation on fisheries manage- 

 ment and improvements in river habitat. 



This is why our Committee is greatly concerned by reports that the negotiations 

 between the United States and Canada have ended in stalemate, and that our 

 shared salmon resources will have to be managed by separate, unilaterally imposed 

 management regimes. We can do better than this, and we must. 



I am hopeful that today's hearing will provide us with an understanding of the 

 Pacific Salmon Commission's views on what needs to be done to resume our coopera- 

 tion with Canada and to reaffirm our two nations' commitment to addressing issues 

 of utmost concern to both countries. 



The statement of Mr. Fields follows: 



Statement of Hon. Jack Fields, a U.S. Representative from Texas, and 

 Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 



Mr. Chairman, the negotiations between the United States and Canada on the Pa- 

 cific Salmon Treaty Annex IV, which governs fisheries issues, have broken down. 

 It is unfortunate that the two sides can not reach an agreement on this important 

 annex. 



The United States and Canada have been able to work together to manage salmon 

 harvests for over a hundred years, either through informal agreements or through 

 formal treaties. The Pacific Salmon Treaty signed in 1985 by Canada and the Unit- 

 ed States, addresses three areas of concern: conservation of specific stocks; the prin- 

 ciple of equity between United States and Canadian harvests; and reducing inter- 

 ceptions of those stocks identified as native to one nation and harvested by the 

 other. In addition to the Treaty, there are four annexes. These annexes are the oper- 

 ative part of the fishery management agreements between the two countries because 

 they are modified on a rotating basis. Subsequent to the signing of the Treaty and 

 the one successful renegotiation of the annexes in 1989, Canada and the United 

 States have not been able to agree on any renegotiations. Consequently, none of the 

 four annexes have been renewed. 



The Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) administers the Treaty. The Commission 

 is assisted by three panels that provide information and make recommendations. 

 Each country has four commissioners who decide that country's vote on Treaty is- 

 sues. The U.S. panel has a non-voting Federal commissioner and three voting com- 

 missioners representing Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, and the Pacific Northwest 

 tribes. The voting mechanism is set up in such a way that one commissioner can 

 veto a proposal, and the other commissioners can not override that veto. If there 

 is not consensus on a proposal, it does not get passed on to the PSC. Some claim 

 that this procedure is a hindrance to the negotiation process. Others point out that 

 it protects the rights of all U.S. participants by ensuring that reductions in U.S. 

 fishing will be fairly allocated. 



The main issues of contention are the principle of equity and interceptions. Both 

 parties have put money into restoring their stocks (through improved stock manage- 

 ment, restoration of habitat, and hatchery enhancement) and want to reap the bene- 

 fits of these efibrts. These efforts are nullified due to interceptions by both sides. 

 The Canadians, believing U.S. interceptions are higher than their own, have pro- 

 posed an equity position to redistribute the wealth according to the intercepted 

 catch rate of each party. The United States has not agreed to this approach to eq- 

 uity, believing it to be a more complex issue. The United States has been unable 



