57 



state action is effective. 



The legislation that the Committee is currently considering clearly goes a 

 long way toward addressing the issues about which the Commission has been 

 concerned. It avoids many of the complexities and emphasis on federal action that 

 troubled some of the bills considered by Congress last year. It emphasizes the role of 

 the states. It builds on the success of the striped bass model and applies it 

 generically to other Atlantic coastal species. 



Mr. Chairman, I would, however, like to share a number of concerns that could 

 be expected to cause problems for the states that are in the draft legislation. I 

 believe that these are serious problems that could jeopardize the abiUty of the 

 states to support the bUl. 



One issue that has been problematic in developing this legislation is the 

 question of how much time states would have to come into compliance with existing 

 plans. The bill would allow up to 90 days for the Commission to develop a schedule 

 for implementation of existing plans, not to exceed one year from date of enactment. 

 We are concerned that this is just not workable. In many states, legislative action 

 will be required to come into compliance. Legislative calendars, as any member of 

 Congress wUl recognize, are subject to wide and diverse pressures. In some cases, 

 state legislatures are limited regarding how often or how long they are allowed to 

 meet, or with respect to the issues that may be brought up. It could simply be 

 impossible for a state that requires legislative action to meet the time frames 

 contained in the bill. This may also be a problem for states that must comply with 

 requirements of state adnxinistrative procedures statutes. 



Let me note that the problem for the states here is not really that different 

 from the difficrulties faced by the federal government. The Congress, and many of 

 the state directors who are members of Regional Fishery Management Councils, have 



