[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 15, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             THE UNITED STATES-CANADA PACIFIC SALMON TREATY

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my colleagues are well aware of the 
important place that the Pacific salmon occupies in the economy and 
culture of the Pacific Northwest. I have spoken often on this floor 
about our difficult struggle to enhance declining salmon runs without 
devastating families and communities, many of which have come to depend 
on the same water and habitat as the salmon.
  I have discussed this issue over the years with a myriad of fisheries 
experts within the region. Many have differences on individual recovery 
measures, but nearly all agree that it is critical for the United 
States and Canada to manage effectively the harvest of each other's 
native salmon stocks. In fact, the recovery team commissioned by the 
National Marine Fisheries Service to draft a recovery plan for 
threatened and endangered Snake River salmon stocks identified reducing 
Canadian harvest as a high priority.
  Since 1985, this harvest has been managed under the provisions of the 
United States-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty. I played a role in 
negotiating and implementing this treaty during my first term in the 
Senate, so it is particularly disappointing to me that negotiations on 
annexes to the treaty have collapsed. Canada has walked away from the 
negotiating table, asserting that the United States has not bargained 
in good faith with regard to equity--a seemingly simple principle of 
the treaty that in reality is highly complex.
  Among other things, Canada wants a reduction in the United States 
harvest of Canadian fish in Puget Sound and southeast Alaska. The 
United States wants to reduce the Canadian take of fragile coho and 
chinook runs that originate in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 
California. There are numbers of ways by which we can reach these 
goals, but they must all eventually be determined at the negotiating 
table.
  Canada cannot and should not expect to reach agreement with the 
United States by going outside the treaty process. But that is 
nevertheless what Canada has announced it will do--and is now doing.
  United States net fishermen were outraged to learn last week that 
Canada intends to charge each American vessel $1,100 to travel through 
the Canadian Inside Passage on its way to Alaskan fishing grounds. This 
action seems clearly to be a violation of international law, and 
imposes a severe safety hazard on those boats that choose not to pay 
the fee and instead travel to Alaska through the dangerous open waters 
west of Vancouver Island.
  Arguments about the United States-Canada treaty are best left for the 
negotiating table--that is where they belong. The outrageous decision 
taken by the Canadian Government does not facilitate those 
negotiations, it is not consistent with the long tradition of peaceful 
and amicable relations between our nations; it is unworthy of the 
government of Canada.
  It divides us. It tears apart our fishing communities, and makes it 
more difficult for us to resolve the highly complex problem of jointly 
managing our salmon fisheries.
  It is also dangerous. I have received news in the last several hours 
that Canada has seized one or more American vessels and is holding them 
in Canadian ports. Rumors are rampant in the U.S. fishing community, 
and tempers are flaring.
  Mr. President, nothing good can come of this. Some have said that it 
is not time to point fingers at the Canadians. I disagree. Canada has 
implemented a policy that the United States State Department has 
determined to be illegal. Canada has seized at least one United States 
vessel. While it is certainly not time for irresponsible action, it is 
time for strong action. The President must take a leadership role.
  I am therefore about to introduce a resolution to protest the transit 
license fee. The resolution calls for U.S. fishermen to be reimbursed 
for payment of the fee from the fishermen's protective fund, and calls 
for the Fishermen's Protective Act to be amended so that vessels do not 
have to be seized to permit reimbursement.
  The resolution also calls on the President to provide for the safety 
of the United States fishing fleet, and to take actions necessary to 
encourage Canada to discontinue the transit license fee.
  Finally, the resolution calls on the President to redouble his 
efforts to negotiate an agreement with Canada that provides for 
appropriate management and conservation of both countries' fisheries.
  We need the hand of Presidential leadership to steer us toward a 
resolution of the issues. Only the President can speak for all of the 
United States. Only the President can express our deep concern with the 
grave and provocative actions of the Canadian Government. The President 
must act now.
  This resolution now represents my views and those of Senator Stevens, 
Senator Hatfield, Senator Murkowski, Senator Packwood, Senator Craig, 
and Senator Kempthorne. We will defer the introduction of the 
resolution, however, to secure more and bipartisan sponsorship up and 
down the Pacific coast, and in order to seek the unanimous consent 
necessary to pass the resolution promptly, support which we urge from 
all of our colleagues.
  The resolution demonstrates that Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 
Alaska will not be divided by punitive illegal measures such as the 
transit license fee that endangers U.S. citizens. We are united on this 
matter and will work together to ensure this outrageous policy and the 
seizures are reversed.
  The resolution also makes it absolutely clear it is at the 
negotiating table and not anyplace else that Canada and the United 
States can make a deal on the Pacific Salmon Treaty that will protect 
salmon for both countries.
  I ask my colleagues for their support of this resolution and ask for 
its prompt consideration.
  I thank the majority leader for his courtesy in granting me the time.

                          ____________________