17 



lated for chinook, as well. And that is reflected in a lot of the docu- 

 ments but need not be brought up at this point. 



The State of Washington supported the decision by the Federal 

 Government a year ago to take over equity discussions on a govern- 

 ment-to-government basis because we were not making progress. 

 Unfortunately, even though the Federal Government took that 

 issue over, little progress has been made to date. In part, this has 

 been because of the same kind of policy direction that was given 

 in the implementing legislation. 



Gary Matlock mentioned that there is a degree of frustration at 

 the Federal level that the implementing legislation gives them lit- 

 tle clear authority to act unilaterally and does not put firm ice 

 under their feet to deal on a government-to-government basis. But 

 if I can quote a letter from Governor Roberts of Oregon, Governor 

 Lowry of Washington, Bill Frank representing Northwest Indian 

 Fisheries Commission, and Gene Green representing the Columbia 

 River tribes: 



"We support the President's call to move forward on strategies to 

 rebuild salmon stocks to optimum production through better har- 

 vest management and coast-wide habitat protection and restora- 

 tion. The Treaty was intended to provide the vehicle for this 

 progress. However, it has been clear for several years that progress 

 on the equity issue is critical to success of the Treaty. Absent such 

 progress, Canada simply will not cooperate fully in rebuilding de- 

 pressed Pacific salmon stocks. We disagree strongly with many as- 

 pects of Canada's position on equity. Nevertheless, we are not con- 

 vinced that the State Department has done all it can to explore 

 reasonable options with Canada that could break the impasse. Our 

 representatives to the U.S. section of the Pacific Salmon Commis- 

 sion remain prepared to pursue such options." 



This letter, written early this year, was in anticipation of the 

 kinds of conflicts that led to the last six weeks of intense govern- 

 ment-to-government negotiations over the 1994 fishing regime. 



The long and the short of it is that we need and we invite this 

 Committee to take a look at the implementing legislation, what I 

 call an "experiment in implementation of Federal public policy," 

 and see if it isn't time for a change, to put in place a forcing mecha- 

 nism for decisions that can bring us all, including the Commission, 

 to meet the expectations that were raised in 1985. 



Thank you. 



[The statement of Mr. Turner can be found at the end of the 

 hearing.] 



Mrs. Unsoeld. Thank you. 



The Coast Guard was invited to respond to any questions, and 

 perhaps a representative of them would come up and sit in the 

 other Chair to be available for questioning. 



I might break a little bit with tradition and call on the gen- 

 tleman from Alaska whose seniority outnumbers ours, since he was 

 not here to make an opening statement, and besides, I would rath- 

 er invite him than let him go. 



So I will yield to the gentleman. 



Mr. Young. Madam Chairman, you are a smooth one. 



Thank you, Madam Chairman. 



