30 



stocks and a necessary component to our coastwide management strategy. This 

 Treaty alone will not solve our salmon resource problems, but it is a critical ele- 

 ment. 



As members of the Committee with oversight, it is our responsibility to ensure 

 that the Treaty process is effective and productive. Salmon have far-reaching eco- 

 nomic, environmental, and cultural significance for the Northwest. We simply can 

 not afford another year of failed Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations. We must fix 

 the Treaty process and continue to search for comprehensive solutions to bring our 

 salmon resources back to healthy, sustainable levels. 



I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. They represent a wealth of 

 fisheries management experience and knowledge of the Treaty, and I expect a posi- 

 tive exchange of ideas. 



Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for your continued commitment to address 

 Northwest salmon resource issues. Through your efforts and those of the Commit- 

 tee, I believe that we may yet find answers to these very complicated questions. 



Ms. Cantwell. But if I could just ask Mr. Turner a question, I 

 am sorry I wasn't here for your testimony; I was over on the Floor 

 speaking on another maritime issue. 



But I guess I am curious as we go through our current process 

 and obviously the frustrations in getting a united U.S. position, 

 what changes do you think that we need to make to improve this 

 process for next year's negotiations, if you could elaborate on that? 



Mr. Turner. If your question is specific to 1995, I would love to 

 think that we could get in place a change in the legislation that 

 would provide us a forcing mechanism for decisions. In my testi- 

 mony and Gary's testimony, there is attached a proposal that 

 would do that, that we have discussed this morning. 



But if it is not possible to get that in place for 1995, I still would 

 strongly urge the Committee to consider it for the long haul, be- 

 cause I do believe that is the road we need to take. But for 1995, 

 I think we need to have a strong Federal voice in speaking to the 

 Canadians. 



Our understanding to date is that the negotiations with Canada, 

 that fell out of the discussions on a government-to-government 

 basis over the last several weeks, will lead to more government-to- 

 government discussions in September. And in those discussions we 

 have the assurance that United States negotiators will be in con- 

 sultation with the commissioners, but they will go forward on a 

 govemment-to-government basis with obviously a strong voice from 

 the Federal Government. I think we ought to parlay that strong 

 voice into an effective negotiation with the Canadians to deal with 

 1995. 



Ms. Cantwell. And so are you saying that the current process 

 is flawed in that regard, that it doesn't clearly specify the process 

 for the Federal Government to speak in a unified voice and we 

 should clarify that in our 



Mr. Turner. Yes. Very much so. 



Again, our point is that we have no forcing mechanism for deci- 

 sions, and we need to put one into place, the sooner the better. If 

 it can't be put in place for 1995, that shouldn't deter us from trying 

 to get it in place as quickly as possible. But we need to deal with 

 the Canadians for 1995 and we should do so with a strong Federal 

 voice. 



Ms. Cantwell. Mr. James, did you want to comment? 



Mr. James. Yes. I differ from Bob somewhat that we need a forc- 

 ing mechanism, that portion is broken within the Treaty act. I am 



