19 



interest in the fishery, and he called on Secretary Brown to take 

 the initiative and develop coordinated Federal leadership, as I stat- 

 ed before, to transition the Councils from their existing stature to 

 one of public trust. 



But now, putting it bluntly, from your experience in examining 

 how your agency works, do you think the department is up to the 

 task or does Congress have to get involved before there can be any 

 meaningful change? Do there need to be statutory changes? 



Mr. DeGeorge. As I remember the Governor's letter, he was con- 

 cerned that he might be disadvantaged because he tried to be fair 

 or equitable as to his neighboring States. 



I really would not know how to make a judgment. I think the 

 issue here is whether the rest of the governors would join the Gov- 

 ernor of Washington so that in effect we would bring outside exper- 

 tise to the decisionmaking. 



But each governor has the right to nominate three members and 

 I don't see where he would go against his own State's best interest 

 and put people who would not represent the commercial industries 

 and those people who have fishery investments in his own State. 



I would say that I do not think it is likely. 



Ms. Unsoeld. To summarize the current situation, it is almost 

 impossible unless the individual himself or herself was going to 

 have a financial benefit directly resulting from the vote, the action 

 taken, to have a conflict of interest and even there if it pertained 

 to interest in harvesting, processing or marketing activities and 

 had been disclosed, it would really be still immune from conflict of 

 interest as we know it. 



Mr. DeGeorge. You are correct, as long as there was disclosure. 



Ms. Unsoeld. Would you mind elaborating on 11, 12 and 13 on 

 your list of recommendations on possible amendments and how 

 those would work or why you made those recommendations? 



Mr. DeGeorge. Well, 11 says in effect that the scientific statis- 

 tical Subcommittees have an obligation and generally work with 

 the full Committee to provide information. 



The stronger the scientific data and, therefore, the more knowl- 

 edge of the Committee, and the Subcommittees, the better off we 

 would be, or the more informed the decision. 



I think it raises public confidence if the scientific committee had 

 a two-thirds vote on issues. It would help get the best possible data 

 in front of the Committee, to the Council. 



12. This is primarily a legal definition but I think the clear pre- 

 ponderance of evidence is to ensure that the votes are based on the 

 best facts that can be obtained. It is all part of making it more dif- 

 ficult to make up judgments, to get the best possible decisions from 

 the Council. 



I might add personally that I think that here is where you run 

 into some very tough financial questions because a lot of Councils 

 don't have the staff, don't have the fiscal support of NOAA, and 

 there is not enough money to conduct the necessary economic anal- 

 ysis. 



There is sometimes a potential conflict between the NOAA law- 

 yers and the Councils' staff as to who they represent but I think 

 anything that raises the integrity of the data and improves it will 



