12 



through money from the Wallop-Breaux Fund. Unless additional 

 money was forthcoming from Congress, funding for this initiative 

 would probably continue to come from sources like Wallop-Breaux. 



Mr. Lancaster. For the record, if either of the witnesses can 

 come up with an estimate of what this might cost the States, we 

 would appreciate your providing that estimate for the Committee. 

 H.R. 2134 makes it illegal to possess within a State under a mora- 

 torium fish caught in violation of the moratorium. What impact 

 will this have on fishermen who have lawfully caught fish? 



As an example, assume that North Carolina is placed under a 

 moratorium. Would North Carolina retailers be deterred from pur- 

 chasing legally caught fish out of fear of possible enforcement 

 action? And, Mr. Coates, I will call on you first, but the others may 

 wish to comment as well. 



Mr. Coates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Commission debated 

 this issue at length yesterday, and it does raise some very signifi- 

 cant problems. There is the obvious problem of law enforcement, a 

 problem which has been addressed by some of the States. Even now 

 when States have fishery closures in their waters or a harvesting 

 prohibition, the question comes up about what States can do in 

 terms of receiving fish from other areas, and we are working on 

 that. 



In Massachusetts there is legislation probably going to be filed or 

 a regulation adopted that would allow this accommodation so that 

 fish could be brought in legally caught from other venues. I don't 

 see much of a distinction between a moratorium-type situation 

 unless it was the desire of the people enforcing the moratorium to 

 really come down hard on the particular State. But I don't think it 

 is really the intention to thwart commerce completely, and I am 

 sure that provisions could be made to accommodate it with the ap- 

 propriate accountability, either a paper trail or something of that 

 nature. 



Mr. Lancaster. Dr. Tillman, aren't we giving the Commission 

 unprecedented power here by allowing them to determine whether 

 or not a State has taken adequate action to enforce the moratori- 

 um, and are there other situations where Commissions are to 

 report to the Federal Government on the actions of member 

 States? 



Dr. Tillman. I am unaware of a precedent for that in general for 

 a broad-reaching bill such as this one. We do have the example of 

 the Striped Bass Act — a specific example — but the idea of giving 

 the Commission this responsibility is, in my view, to provide a 

 filter between the States and the Federal Government. The Federal 

 Government only comes into play when the Commission calls upon 

 us to get involved. That in a way preserves the States' prerogatives 

 which they give over to the Commission in order to undertake this 

 work. So it is between the States and the Commissions, in our view, 

 and we only get involved when there is a definite problem in the 

 view of the Commission, and then we are called in. 



Mr. Lancaster. Are the powers here identical to those in the 

 striped bass legislation, or are they broader? 



Dr. Tillman. My understanding is that they are virtually the 

 same, but the Striped Bass Act was the model on which the pro- 

 posed legislation has been developed. 



