The recent blockades in Gloucester Harbor and Boston Harbor are certainly evi- 

 dence that fishermen want more of a voice in decisions that will severely impact 

 their livelihood. Members of the fishing community have a financial interest in pre- 

 serving fisheries, but they also have the most incentive to preserve the future of 

 those fisheries. , , , j 



I urge this Subcommittee to encourage greater, not less, local and community con- 

 trol of fisheries as the Magnuson Act Reauthorization progresses. Thank you. 



Mr. Manton. Mr. Lancaster? 



Mr. Lancaster. No statement. 



Mr. Manton. That concludes the opening statements of the 

 members, and the chair now recognizes Mr. DeGeorge for his testi- 

 mony. 



STATEMENT OF FRANK DEGEORGE, INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED BY 

 WAYNE WEAVER, COUNSEL TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 



Mr. DeGeorge. Mr. Chairman, my remarks are brief— I think I 

 will read the entire statement because it generally covers where I 

 want to go, and it covers about five or six minutes. 



Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased 

 to be here to discuss conflicts of interest as they relate to Fishery 

 Management Councils. Two years ago, we reviewed allegations of 

 conflicts of interest against several members and former staff of the 

 North Pacific Fishery Management Council in Alaska. 



I might add a point here that this investigation followed an audit 

 we did of the Council concerning a couple of its decisions. We con- 

 cluded that two members of the Council did vote on matters in 

 which they had a financial interest. However, the Magnuson Act 

 specifically exempts Council members from legal prohibitions on 

 such conflicts, and the two members had properly disclosed their 

 interests, so they did not violate the law. 



We also found that another member received a precontractual 

 payment for consulting work while on the Council, but there was 

 no conflict between that contract and his work on the inshore/off- 

 shore issue which occurred before he got the contract. From a legal 

 point of view, again, there was no conflict of interest. 



Under the Magnuson Act, the Regional Fishery Management 

 Councils prepare fishery management plans for each fishery within 

 their geographical area of authority that requires conservation and 

 management. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing 

 privileges among various U.S. fishermen, allocation plans are sup- 

 posed to be fair and equitable to all fishermen, reasonably cal- 

 culated to promote conservation, and carried out in such a manner 

 that no particular individual, corporation or other entity acquires 

 an excessive share of such privileges. 



Judging from the many articles in the press which discussed alle- 

 gations about the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and 

 our subsequent investigation, clearly there was a perception that 

 certain members were controlling Council actions to maximize their 

 personal financial interests. However, we found no evidence of any 

 conflicts under the present Magnuson Act. 



Let me start by stating that I believe that the laws that apply 

 to other Federal operations in my judgment should also apply to 

 Fishery Management Councils. The existence of concurrent finan- 

 cial interests, whether actually conflicting or not, and whether ex- 



