the direct and immediate attention of Congress and particularly the committees in Congress that are concerned about fishing and fishing problems and fishing management problems.

I would say at the outset that the subcommittee does not have any preconceived opinions on this issue. We have held hearings in Washington, D.C., but we are here today to listen and to learn from the people that have the greatest knowledge about this resourceand the most to lose from its destruction.

When we have particular problems in a particular area I think it is very important for us to come to that area and hear from the people who are directly involved because heaven knows that Washington does not have all of the answers to our problems. We have to listen to learn and we have to do a lot more than that other than just sending out dictations from Washington about how people should solve their problems back home.

I am reminded of a story that someone told me about the two greatest lies that were ever told. The first one is about a fellow who said, I just put my check in the mail this morning, and the other one is, I am from the Federal Government and I am here to help you. I think that makes a very good point.

We are coming here today, with an open mind. I am not from California. I am from a congressional district located in southern Louisiana. We have a large fishing industry in my area. I am from a coastal area. Basically we have a great deal of sport and commercial fishing in my area. So, I am sympathetic to your problems and hopefully we will be able to work together to try and resolve them. The issue we are focusing on here today is only one of a large number being investigated by the subcommittee. The issue here is how best to insure the enhancement and long-term conservation of the salmon and steelhead resources of the Klamath and Trinity Rivers. In Alaska just last month the issues included the foreign harvest of salmon and crab and halibut. In New England the major controversy revolves around cod and haddock, and in my home State of Louisiana the issue is shrimp.

Our interest here, as it is in all of these other areas, is to seek a solution that insures the conservation of the resource and is fair and equitable to all people concerned.

This subcommittee originally became involved in the Klamath River controversy because of the serious concerns expressed to us by State and Federal fishery biologists that the level of fishing on these stocks, by all concerned, and the lack of any significant regulation of fishing on the river, was threatening the salmon resource which everyone is interested in conserving.

The subcommittee is aware that the salmon runs of the Klamath system are in a dangerous condition, as are many of the runs up and down the west coast. Everyone seems to be in agreement that the decline is a result of a combination of factors including habitat degradation, reduced water flows as a result of dam construction and excessive foreign interceptions. The testimony we received in Washinton indicated that the status of the fishery is likely to be even more depressed this year because of the 1976-77 drought which caused greatly reduced stream flows and the loss of important spawning habitat for chinook salmon in all California north coast streams including the Klamath River. The National Marine

Fisheries Service testified that natural runs of Chinook salmon in the Klamath River are expected to be below average for the 1979, 1980, and 1981 seasons.

This is not very good news. The questions for us today is how we go about making the situation livable and what role the Federal Government can or should play in this effort.

I would make just one other comment. I think that with all of our fishing problems around the Nation, not just in Humboldt County or Eureka, Calif., but really everywhere, that we have a fishing industry in this country as a result of the 200-mile fishing legislation.

There presently is a great deal of mistrust by much of the fishing industry over some of the decisions and some of the recommendations that are being made now by biologists and recommendations for management programs that are being made.

It is extemely important that the American fishing industry have confidence in the people that are making and enforcing some of there regulations. I know from my own experience in my congressional district that many of the fishermen are pretty unhappy and extremely distrustful of many decisions that are made by biologists who seem to say they know more about the fishing habitat than the people who have been earning their livelihood fishing these waters for many years.

It is important that somehow we get all of the goods together, to sit down and discuss the major problems that we have. It doesn't do any good for someone to try to enforce fishing regulations which do not make any sense at the same time. It does not do a fisherman any good to overfish or deplete a fishing resource.

Somewhere between these two differing opinions we have to bring the forces together so we can come up with some solutions that make sense and preserve and improve the American fishing industry.

We have a lot that we can do, a lot that needs to be done. So, we have come to Eureka today to hear from you, to hear about your problems and we want to express our appreciation to the people of Eureka who have been so generous and helpful to us in setting up these hearings and to Congressman McCloskey's staff and to Congressman Clausen's staff for their assistance in putting these hearings together.

The committee today will operate under a time frame as far as witnesses are concerned that is similar to the approach that we use in Washington. In Washington we limit witnesses to approximately 5 minutes in testifying before committees of Congress. We will extend that time today to allow you 10 minutes to present your oral testimony, to come before the committee and tell us what your opinion is on a particular problem and any suggestions that you may have as to how we might solve that problem.

However, there will be those who will not be able to make presentations orally today before the committee. If you cannot do so, we would like to receive your written testimony if you have it. If you do not have it today and if you have thoughts and ideas that you come to the conclusion of after hearing the testimony today, we would like you to put your thoughts in writing and send them to our committee in Washington.

We will keep this record open for 30 days, which will give everyone an opportunity to submit written testimony. Written testimony has the same effect as an oral presentation in the sense that we go back to Washington and our staff and members of the committee will sit and read that testimony and it will be given the same weight as someone who sits before the committee today and makes an oral presentation.

So, I want everyone to feel that they will have an opportunity to be heard, whether it is this morning or whether it is by presenting a written statement to us, either today or within 30 days.

We will be able to use it for the benefit of the committee and all the Members back in Washington.

With that I would like to recognize now for any opening remarks that he might have ranking minority member and a good friend of the committee and a good friend of the American fishing industry, a gentleman from a little bit south of here, Congressman McCloskey.

Congressman McCloskey, I am surprised that he is here and wide awake. I understand that he got in this morning at 6:30 after coming all the way from the east coast.

So, Pete, we welcome you and we welcome any comments that you might have.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, I do have a statement, but I would like to defer to Congressman Clausen, the Congressman from this area, before I give it, if I may.

Mr. BREAUX. All right. The Congressman from this district, who told me that we really didn't need a passport or visa, that the people were very friendly-and that certainly has been shown to be true since we have been here-Congressman Don Clausen.

STATEMENT OF HON. DON H. CLAUSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to you, Pete McCloskey, and to the members of the staff and the committee who have come here today to give the people an opportunity to be heard.

I want to extend, on behalf of the people of the area, my sincerest welcome to you. I think it is very significant that you and the members of the committee and the staff would take this Memorial Day weekend when you frankly could be in your congressional districts or out on a bit of a vacation, rather than coming out here to permit people of this area to convey to you some of their very deep concerns as relates to the problems of the Klamath fisheries and the whole of the north coast fishery problem.

At the outset I want to add to some of the comments that the chairman has made and to submit some thoughts that I have that may give a measure of background for the committee as well as for those in attendance observing this hearing today.

I want to assure everyone in this audience that the subcommittee is not meeting here today in a decisionmaking capacity. It is only the subcommittee's intention to listen to those of you who know best the situation on the Klamath and who are most familiar with the issues involved.

We believe it is important to have a full and public record of testimony created on this issue to be available to the Congress and the executive agencies with regulatory authority within this field for further evaluation and possibly some recommendations.

We will undoubtedly hear of the Jesse Short case and its impact on the fishing issue, but we have no desire to infringe in any way on the Short case as it moves through the judicial process nor will we take any action that might affect the case.

I have maintained the position-and will continue to do so-that the Court of Claims is the only proper forum for the issues involved in the Short case to be considered and resolved.

At this point, I think it appropriate to state my strong conviction, for the record, that the law and case history are firmly in support of traditional ceremonial and subsistence fishing for Indian families living on the Klamath River. Therefore, neither the Congress nor any other level of government has the right to challenge this acknowledged and accepted traditional right of Indians to fish for ceremonial and subsistence purposes.

Salmon is one of the Pacific coast's most valuable natural resources. It has great value to those who use it for subsistence and ceremonial purposes and it has great value for sport fishing interests and for Pacific fisherman and for consumers throughout the United States.

At the same time, salmon is a uniquely fragile resource because it requires acceptable and protected habitats in both fresh and salt water. Its reproductive cycle takes place entirely in fresh water while most of its lifespan is spent in a long, migratory trip through vast reaches of the Pacific Ocean.

The fact that salmon must survive both in freshwater and saltwater has led to one of the most complicated, complex and potentially confusing multijurisdictional situations I am aware of. I would like to review this.

As you know, under our 200-mile-limit fishing bill, the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the U.S. Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have management responsibilities beyond 3 miles out to the 200-mile limit as authorized by this committee. Additionally, because salmon are anadromous fish, with an extensive migratory pattern, the Commerce Department has extended jurisdiction in international waters and this leads to treaty questions with other nations out beyond the 200-mile limit.

Between the coastline and 3 miles, jurisdiction is exercised by the State of California. As we all know, salmon and other anadromous fish have no particular regard for man-made boundaries such as the 200-mile limit and migrate further out to sea and mingle at will with other salmon from Washington State, Oregon and Canada. These characteristics add to the management problem as it becomes necessary for us to obtain the cooperation of the other States and nations.

We are in the process of working out treaty agreements with Canada and, once the Law of the Sea Conference is completed, we will hopefully have a framework within which we can achieve agreement with other nations pertaining to the management of the resource in international waters.

Once the fish enter the Klamath River, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in its role as trustee of the reservation, has assumed jurisdiction over fishing by Indians in the lower 40 miles of the river. The BIA jurisdiction exists side by side with regulation of sports fishing by California's Department of Fish and Game.

We must also recognize the rights of these sports fishermen who come to the Klamath region from all over California and throughout the west coast, as well as the local fishermen who traditionally come to the river. They make a significant contribution to our economy and have a significant interest in insuring the protection of the resource.

In addition, the Coast Guard has responsibility for the safety of vessels on the river and the Corps of Engineers has general jurisdiction over navigable streams under the laws as established.

Finally, when the fish have moved past the upper limit of the reservation they fall entirely within California's jurisdiction.

Despite continuing and growing efforts, the salmon population throughout remains under pressure and requires conscientious and sensitive management if it is to be maintained. This committee can help us with this management task by using its investigative powers to determine the answers to some of the following questions.

Is there any documented evidence of commercial gill netting fishing on the Klamath or Trinity Rivers in the area of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation prior to its creation in 1872?

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has repeatedly claimed this is the case, but Congressman McCloskey and I have attempted to obtain verification of this claim on innumerable occasions to no avail. The leading histories we have both researched do not indicate a commercial fishing tradition. There was an attempt at commercial fishing on the Klamath early in this century, but its adverse impact on the fishery resulted in a statewide initiative requiring a complete ban on commercial fishing by the State of California until the BIA attempted to revive it last summer.

Will commercial gill net fishing on the Klamath harm the size of the salmon run?

As some of you remember, following Secretary Andrus' visit to the area last fall and his subsequent evaluation, he indicated to me in a personal conversation that the Klamath River could not sustain commercial gill net fishing.

I am personally of the opinion that it will serve the best interests of everyone to set aside commercial gill net fishing as an objective and concentrate on an enhancement program directed toward meeting the sports fishing potential.

The economic benefits will accrue to Indians and non-Indians living in the area from those who traditionally come to the Klamath because of its reputation as the greatest salmon and steelhead river in the world.

Our area's economic and social well-being suggest a need for enlightened awareness of this potential.

Other questions include:

Who will ultimately manage the salmon resource?

How will the management arrangement be structured?

How should the law enforcement program be structured?