81 



We do not subscribe to the notion that the North Pacific council 

 has an undue conflict of interest. Our council has come under se- 

 vere criticism at times because of that. I would like to point out 

 that out of 905 recorded votes on motions and amendments in 24 

 meetings of the North Pacific council from basically January 1988 

 to September 1992, only 14 votes out of 905 found the 6 Alaska 

 council members unanimous. Out of those 14 votes, 11 had the Sec- 

 retary's representative voting with the Alaskans. So that left 3 

 votes out of 905 where it was just the Alaskans lined up against 

 members from the south with the Secretary's representative voting 

 against Alaska. 



I think that clearly shows that the council and the Alaska votes 

 on the council take the long view of managing the resources, trying 

 to consider the implications of management actions, not just for 

 Alaska fishermen, but for the fisheries as a whole. And I think that 

 it really speaks to the fairness of the process. There are winners 

 and losers, there is no doubt. There always will be. But I really be- 

 lieve that this voting record is exemplary and something that Alas- 

 ka can be proud of. 



One problem that we have had — and this not confined just to 

 Alaska, but is true up and down the west coast and perhaps the 

 east coast — is that it has become more and more the practice of the 

 Secretary to substitute his judgment for the judgment of a council. 

 This has happened with the Pacific whiting decision. It has hap- 

 pened with the inshore-offshore decision up here. It happened with 

 salmon off the west coast. And it is a growing trend. 



Our reading of the act, and the legislative history, is that Con- 

 gress intended for the council to really do the job — and placed the 

 Secretary in a role of final arbiter against any arbitrary and capri- 

 cious decision; any decision that was contrary to the long-term con- 

 servation of stocks, or was clearly a capricious decision that came 

 out of a council. The Secretary was not intended to substitute his 

 or her judgment for the council's without at least making some 

 findings and taking some steps to work with the council to try to 

 ameliorate the problem with their decision. 



We believe section 304 of the act should be amended, and that 

 it should restrict the Secretary's ability to override a council deci- 

 sion without making detailed findings explaining why that decision 

 was reached, and setting out some criteria for secretarial override. 

 Presently, the Secretary has not, in our view, related his decision 

 back to the record sufficiently. 



Once again, I want to thank you for coming to Alaska and taking 

 the time to hear about our fishery management problems. Thank 

 you, Mr. Chairman. 



The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Benton. We can 

 start right there, Mr. Benton, and clarify in my mind on the section 

 304 of the act itself. As I understand it, the Secretary cannot make 

 a decision. He can send it back to the council, but he cannot make 

 the decision himself. In fact, that came up in the hearings. Several 

 witnesses wanted to have stronger Secretarial leadership. They 

 suggested that the Secretary ought to provide leadership on the 

 bycatch problem and other conservation issues right on down the 

 line. But you are telling me that as you know it, and you are prob- 

 ably far more experienced than I am, that the Secretary has over- 



