15 



Ms. Unsoeld. Can you conceive of a reason why the fishing in- 

 dustry alone ought to be treated different from the timber, mining, 

 oil industry or for that matter any other industry? 



Mr. DeGeorge. Well, I tried to say earlier, madam, that in effect 

 I do believe that we could have an effective fishery management 

 council meeting the same objectives of all other oversight groups 

 and you have mentioned a few. There are others. 



Ms. Unsoeld. Since the Magnuson Act was last reauthorized, 

 there have been countless editorials from the Seattle Times and the 

 Washington Post, urging us to make substantive changes to ad- 

 dress the conflict of interest issue. 



In our own hearings last year no less than 35 witnesses includ- 

 ing three candid Council chairmen have gone on record supporting 

 changes to the Act in this area and now today your testimony reaf- 

 firms that basic conclusion and the need to restore public con- 

 fidence in the system. 



Against this background, can you see any reason why the Con- 

 gress should not seek to amend the Act to address these concerns? 



Mr. DeGeorge. It would be my recommendation that it give con- 

 sideration to some of the suggestions we have made here and oth- 

 ers. Yes, I think it needs to be amended. 



Ms. Unsoeld. And in response to my colleague from Alaska, al- 

 though you may not have had organizations or groups coming to 

 you complaining about this, certainly I as a representative have re- 

 ceived from a number of conservation groups and others complaints 

 about it, and when I have that information I am going to submit 

 that also into the record. 



[The articles mentioned by Ms. Unsoeld are found at the end of 

 the hearing.] 



Ms. Unsoeld. But what is a conflict of interest violation that 

 could occur under this Act? Are there any situations so grievous 

 that it might constitute? 



Mr. DeGeorge. The law addresses one particular set of excep- 

 tions to the regulations, specifically the one that deals with a deci- 

 sion that might "be of a particular matter primarily of individual 

 concern." Even our General Counsel has not really defined what 

 that means. 



I would presume that if you owned 12 trawlers in Seattle and 

 you made a decision that those 12 trawlers effectively would get 

 100 percent of the marketplace, that might be of particular interest 

 to you. Yes, that is an exception that the regulations grant, where 

 there could still be a conflict. 



The regulations say that you should be prohibited from voting on 

 something which is of a particular financial interest to you and 

 where it can be judged and that is an individual set of cir- 

 cumstances that you are the primary beneficiary of that specific 

 act. 



Mr. Weaver. I might add that that provision is only by regula- 

 tion and it does not affect the criminal statute which they would 

 still be exempt from if there were full financial disclosure. 



Ms. Unsoeld. So if you were part of a small class and that vote 

 ended up benefiting all of the members of that class of entity, 

 would it be a violation? 



