enced individuals would no longer be willing to serve on Regional 

 Fishery Management Councils for fear of being prosecuted under 

 the conflict of interest statutes. 



In response, this Committee again made clear in an oversight re- 

 port that the Secretary was to follow the advice of the Councils un- 

 less Council proposals violated the law. In addition, in 1986 the 

 House and Senate adopted an amendment to the Magnuson Act of- 

 fered by myself and then-Congressman Breaux which exempted 

 Council members from the Federal conflict of interest statutes but 

 required them to fully disclose their financial connections to the 

 commercial fishing industry. 



Unfortunately, as fishery management decisions have become 

 more complicated and increasingly involve allocations among U.S. 

 fishermen, those who see themselves on the losing side of a deci- 

 sion tend to raise the conflict of interest issue as a reason why deci- 

 sions should be overturned. 



I have watched the Regional Council operate during the entire 17 

 years of their existence and I can assure you that the conflict of 

 interest issue is not a new one. It has been raised many times and, 

 strangely enough, always by those who feel that they did not got 

 what they wanted out of a Council decision. 



Nevertheless, I read Mr. DeGeorge's statement and we need to 

 ensure, to the extent possible, that decisions are not being made on 

 the basis of personal interest or as a means of achieving personal 

 gain. 



As I have indicated to you and our colleagues before, Mr. Chair- 

 man, I would be happy to discuss amendments to the Act which 

 provide further protection for the public interest as long as those 

 amendments do not destroy the philosophy underlying the creation 

 of the Regional Fishery Management Councils: that of those di- 

 rectly involved in the fishing industry being given the opportunity 

 to provide their knowledge and expertise, and to regulate them- 

 selves under the standards we have established in the Magnuson 

 Act. 



Mr. Chairman, I would also suggest respectfully, I have done an 

 awful lot of work on this issue over my last 21 years, and I don't 

 see the unrest in the public as some people are stating. 



I see unrest by those that have not been happy with the deci- 

 sions of the Council but we have reviewed and I think we will hear 

 from Mr. DeGeorge that, in fact, all the rules, regulations and laws 

 have been followed. If they have not, then those people who have 

 not followed those laws, as his report says, would be prosecuted. 



But we must maintain the idea of the original Act and that was 

 a citizen advisory council because there are those within every ad- 

 ministration I have served with that would like to see all decisions 

 concerning fisheries to be centralized in Washington, DC, and man- 

 aged by a fish czar. 



That is what I am trying to avoid so I look forward to the testi- 

 mony of the gentlemen today because I think they bring some new 

 light to this issue and they may add something that can improve 

 the Act, but I will insist that the intent of the original Act stays 

 in place. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Manton. Thank you, Mr. Young. Before I recognize other 

 members for an opening statement, I would just like to point out 



