16 



in the context of this whiting decision. These communities need 

 support as well. Westport, Washington, or Grace Harbor, Washing- 

 ton, 20 percent unemployment. We hire from there, just as we hire 

 from this area. We don't think you should forget that, when you 

 are reviewing this decision, and when you are reviewing how the 

 council system is working. It's regional. It is not a Newport or an 

 Oregon council. It was set up in that way because the fisheries are 

 regional. 



What are we going to do in 1994? We're very concerned about that, and I believe 

 everybody at this table and probably everybody in the audience is concerned about 

 it. We are aware that the chairman of the Pacific Council is considering that very 

 fact, as are the other members of the council. What are we going to do in 1994? We 

 would suggest that early on, that the industry be brought together, the various sec- 

 tors, and that we explore what the range of options are, and that we, perhaps even 

 through a facilitated process, if you will, the industry be charged to come back to 

 the council with a solution so that the council doesn't have to get into this battle 

 and the Department of Commerce doesn't have this issue sitting in front of us on 

 April 15, 1994. 



We think that there is the will on all sides of this issue to sit 

 down and work it out. We think that the industry and that the 

 communities that are affected by the industry ought to be given 

 that opportunity, and I would urge the council chair and members 

 of the council to continue thinking along those lines, and, perhaps 

 this summer, we can start to work this process out. We've got to 

 heal. It's not good for Washington and Oregon, for Alaska and the 

 Pacific Northwest, to be in these confrontational issues over alloca- 

 tion. You folks have a lot more important things to be doing than 

 working out theses issues. These issues are very important now be- 

 cause they're being put in your lap, and we think the council 

 system being looked at under the Magnuson Act reauthorization, 

 we think the energies of this particular council interest can help 

 resolve that, and it can be taken out of your lap. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



[Mr. Blum's statement, with attachment, may be found in the ap- 

 pendix.] 



Chairman Wyden. Thank you. We'll begin the questions with 

 Congressman Kopetski. 



Mr. Kopetski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was a very good 

 summation of all of your testimonies. I guess I'd like to start with 

 Mr. Warrens first and ask if you were aware during the council 

 process that the Commerce Department had concerns about the di- 

 rection the council was headed in their allocation decision? 



Mr. Warrens. I believe that there were Commerce Department 

 concerns and those were voiced pretty much through the regional 

 director, Mr. Roland Schmitten. However, even though Rollie 

 Schmitten does give us a reality check once in awhile, I believe 

 that the process that we used and incorporating the testimony, 

 both public and written testimony, clearly indicated that we felt 

 justified in the decision that we made, and that even though there 

 were concerns on the part of Commerce, that we weren't outside 

 the requirements of either the Magnuson Act with respect to the 

 national standards or any legalities of our decision at that point. 



Mr. Kopetski. As I recall, your vote was 9 to 2, is that correct? 



Mr. Warrens. That's correct. 



