14 



but Commerce does demand all those kinds of analyses. Then to 

 have Commerce turn around and do something totally way away 

 from even what NOAA had come out and recommended as the pos- 

 sible allocation, which we weren't terribly happy with what they 

 did, but we did support it. We said we would live with it. Then to 

 have them even throw that into the hat and go way beyond even 

 the wildest rumors we had heard without the analysis that was 

 done like by the council is just totally unacceptable. We need to 

 know what the rules are. We tried to play by the rules. Obviously, 

 they didn't mean tiddlely wink in this case, and we'd like to know 

 what they are. 



I think I'll let it go at that. You have my written statement. I'd 

 be glad to answer any questions you have. 



[Mr. Easley's statement, with attachments, may be found in the 

 appendix.] 



Chairman Wyden. It sounds too logical to me, this idea of kno\y- 

 ing what the rules are. We wouldn't want to have all that logic 

 break out all over Washington in one fell swoop. Thank you. Excel- 

 lent statement. Mr. Blum, welcome. 



TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH R. BLUM ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN 

 FACTORY TRAWLER ASSOCIATION 



Mr. Blum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Ko- 

 petski. The American Factory Trawler Association also wants to 

 thank you, and I do personally for not having to travel to Washing- 

 ton, DC, but to come to a nice coastal locale. Congressman Ko- 

 petski, I particularly am thankful to you for your opening state- 

 ment in which you indicate you're not entirely against Factory 

 Trawlers. It shows that the coastal friendliness is still there, and 

 we have reason to think that we can get together. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. I admit it. 



Mr. Blum. Mr. Chairman, the American Factory Trawler Asso- 

 ciation is a trade association with 18 member companies with 44 

 catcher processor and mothership vessels. I think it's important, 

 particularly early in the discussions or as early as my particular 

 part in the discussion, to sort of put the 1993 decision in context. 

 The 1993 decision didn't just happen on April 15. There was a proc- 

 ess that was followed, and it's a process that the Magnuson Act has 

 encouraged since its inception, and included the elimination of for- 

 eign fishing. While we do not have the history that Barry, and Joe, 

 and some of the folks have as the longevity, we do have the history, 

 and we do have the longevity, if you will, in the Americanization 

 process of the whiting fishery and other fisheries in the Pacific 

 coast. 



In the 1989-90 timeframe, there were about 8,000 tons of whiting 

 coming onshore. The rest were going to foreign processing ships, 

 caught by American catcher vessels but processed by foreign ves- 

 sels. We came into the fishery in 1991 and converted it to 100 per- 

 cent Americanization, and we believe that is an important part of 

 the history of the whiting fishery and needs to be taken into con- 

 sideration when decisions about whiting are made. 



In 1991, the council made an allocation, made an allocation that 

 basically divided the resource between catcher processors and 



