21 



a burden back on them. This diminishes the value of what they 

 have just been given, and I think there is going to be a lot of resist- 

 ance to that. 



I think it is going to be very difficult. I think you maybe even 

 know that, but I would like to discuss that a little bit. What do you 

 think the implications are if this fee is not adopted this year, and 

 how do you respond to what I just said about the duplicity of giving 

 on the one hand and taking with the other? 



Dr. Baker. Let me try to answer both these questions. I think 

 these are very key issues as we look at the problem of how we deal 

 with marine fisheries, the need to conserve the resources, and the 

 need to understand the resource that we have, and even as we go 

 into marine aquaculture. 



Marine fisheries is one of the few natural resources that we have 

 as a nation that does not have any fees associated with it. And 

 there have been a number of public opinion polls asking about 

 whether, in fact, it would make sense for commercial fishermen to 

 pay some fees on the collection of natural resources. 



And the recent polls have been really quite positive from the 

 public saying yes, that would make sense. I have a recent one, I 

 do not have it with me but we could certainly provide it for you, 

 that shows about 75 percent of the public said that this would be 

 a reasonable thing to be considered. 



So, I think we have a recognition nationally that we have a natu- 

 ral resource and that some fee structure associated with that, be- 

 cause of the need to establish conservation rules and to understand 

 the resources, is a sensible thing. 



We also have in our administration, and I think we have seen 

 in other administrations, a very strong push for user fees in gen- 

 eral on issues. And this is a point that 0MB has made to us. It 

 is certainly not the first 0MB that has made such a point. 



When they suggested that to us we sat down with a number of 

 the constituent groups to find out if this was something that we 

 could in fact discuss and lay on the table. And we discovered that 

 it was something that certainly we could bring up and discuss. 



Now, we have a proposed amendment which takes into account 

 many of those discussions. Part of the arrangement here is that 

 there would be an alleviation of fees for those areas that were in 

 particular distress. I do not have the details on that. 



Senator Kerry. Would it be an alleviation or an exemption? 



Dr. Baker. It is not a complete exemption, but it is at least a 

 partial alleviation for those areas in distress. And we have also, I 

 believe, built in, that we would particularly help those areas that 

 have a fishery management conservation plan in place. Those are 

 two points that we think are very important. So, we are trying to 

 address the problem that you raised about the taking with one 

 hand and giving away with the other. 



Senator Kerry. Do you contemplate the distinction between com- 

 mercial fishermen and recreational users? 



Dr. Baker. It applies only to recreational fishermen if they sell 

 their catch. That would be the only fee on recreational fishermen. 



Senator Kerry. The only fee on recreational. So, in effect the fee 

 would be more on commercial than on recreational. 



Dr. Baker. It is on sales. 



