required to discard to feed hungry Americans while providing 

 CPUE information to the scientists. 



Blue Water strongly supports retaining secretarial authority. De- 

 spite the delay, National Marine Fishery Service has made signifi- 

 cant progress in setting up a system that is responsive to both the 

 fishermen and the resource. However, two essential areas must be 

 reviewed. 



First, we suggest that Congress amend the act to require the Sec- 

 retary of Commerce to appoint planned development teams for 

 each species for the membership of the ICC AT Advisory Committee 

 and Species Working Group. 



NMFS says that this cannot be done because of the Federal Advi- 

 sory Committee Act. The regional councils and their advisory 

 groups were exempted in the Magnuson Act. A similar exemption 

 is needed for management of highly migratory species. 



The second element must clarify whether U.S. fishermen should 

 be disadvantaged and restricted beyond ICCAT recommendations. 

 In 1990, Congress spoke clearly that U.S. fishermen must be given 

 a reasonable opportunity to harvest their share of an international 

 quota allocation and that no regulation may have the effect of in- 

 creasing or decreasing any allocation or quota of fish to the United 

 States agreed to pursuant to a recommendation of the commission. 



NOAA has interpreted these terms quite literally. If, as in the 

 case of swordfish, the international recommendation says to reduce 

 fishing mortality, NOAA feels that it does not have to follow this 

 section. As a fisherman, it seems especially contradictory to me 

 when NOAA immediately converts it into a quota for enforcement 

 and monitoring purposes. 



Congress should amend references to allocation of quotas in both 

 the acts by adding the term "fishing mortality levels" and restore 

 integrity to the system. I have attached a table based on NMFS 

 and ICCAT's statistics. The total U.S. share of these migratory spe- 

 cies as reported landed to ICCAT is only 3.5 percent. 



This illustrates why international management is absolutely es- 

 sential. Regulating only U.S. fishermen will not do the trick for 

 these migratory species. How successful can conservation negotia- 

 tions be if other countries know that the United States will carry 

 the full burden? 



What incentive do they have to conserve these resources with us? 

 How does this differ from the International Jurisdictional Fisheries 

 Bill which calls for fairness and is strongly supported by the envi- 

 ronmental and recreational groups? 



Unilateral restrictions on international resources would only for- 

 feit American industries for nothing in return. The guy on the 

 deck is willing to make some shared sacrifices if they are, in fact, 

 shared. Where will we all be in the future when we cannot harvest 

 food fish from the offshore waters? What benefits will have come 

 from our sacrifices? 



We support Congress' defense of American fishermen, and their 

 related industries against hasty unilateral actions. In the case of 

 swordfish, we now know that the dramatic unilateral reductions of 

 nearly 80 percent were unjustified. We also found that internation- 

 al harvest controls are more effective and produce faster results. 

 The north Atlantic swordfish resource is rebuilding. 



