13 



Mr. Young. But they violated nothing, is that correct? They vio- 

 lated your philosophy but they violated nothing. 



Mr. DeGeorge. Well, the question is if you want the exact an- 

 swer I would get, sir, is that they met the test of the Magnuson 

 Act. 



Mr. Young. That is the law. 



Mr. DeGeorge. That is the law. 



Mr. Young. So they did not violate anything. They violated your 

 policy, your philosophy, but they violated nothing. 



Mr. DeGeorge. Well, it is not my law, philosophy or policy, sir. 

 I would suggest that what we had here in the specific case we had 

 a specific request. 



Mr. Young. It met the test of the law. 



Mr. DeGeorge. It did not meet the test of violating the law. 



Mr. Young. There were no violations. 



Mr. DeGeorge. No, sir. 



Mr. Young. OK, thank you. One of the other questions, would it 

 be possible for anybody to vote on these Councils regardless of 

 where they come from without having a conflict of interest? If it is 

 an environmental group, a sport fishing group or a commercial 

 group, a trawling group, an on-base — how in the world can you 

 have someone not have a conflict of interest unless you pick a bas- 

 ket weaver or a psychiatrist or somebody like that? 



This is an industry and a resource that has to have knowledge. 

 How do we keep that from having a conflict? 



Mr. DeGeorge. I will have to speak from my personal view, sir. 

 I think there are many, many people that do not have conflicts of 

 interest. 



There can be knowledge without having conflict of interest. If I 

 was an educator, I guess I could argue there may be a remote op- 

 portunity I would get a grant but certainly not from the Council. 

 They do not have that much money to spend. 



I can conceive of instances where there would truly not be a con- 

 flict of interest although I do note that I do not specifically under- 

 stand what the intention of the legislation was. I presume it was 

 to get the most knowledgeable people — individuals who had per- 

 sonal interest in the outcome of the process. 



My argument is not that there are not violations or conflicts. My 

 argument is that the panel does not have to be limited to those 

 people who only have an exclusive interest. 



Mr. Young. In the truth of the matter, the panel is not limited; 

 it is the discretion of the governor to nominate those. It can be out- 

 side the field of fisheries if that is his wish. The Secretary himself 

 can reject or accept those nominations. That is correct. 



Mr. DeGeorge. That is correct but I would suggest the lion's 

 share, or the very high majority of the people, are those people who 

 do have a personal interest. 



Mr. Young. And I agree but there was a reasoning, and I men- 

 tioned in my opening statement, I am the only one that sat through 

 these hearings and the process that was held and the reason the 

 200-mile limit was created was, in fact, to give us American fish- 

 eries those with the most knowledge. 



