19 



be diminished, since we are allocating between and among U.S. 

 fishers in a national context, needs to be strengthened. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. Well, a 9 to 2 vote sounds pretty strong to me. I 

 mean, you get 1 1 people in a room and get nine of them to agree to 

 something, I find that pretty significant. We can argue that, I 

 guess, all day. In your testimony, you indicate that Oregonians 

 earn about $16.3 million annually working for at-sea processors. 

 How much of that is in relation to the whiting fishery? 



Mr. Blum. Roughly 15 percent. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. OK, so that's about $21/2 to $2 million? 



Mr. Blum. Obviously, it depends upon what the allocation is, the 

 amount of time. They work on a per-share basis, and that will fluc- 

 tuate, and those I believe were 1990 numbers. 



Mr. KoPETSKL Also, you indicate that the at-sea processors have 

 used the ports of Astoria and Coos Bay for offloading, purchasing 

 fuel and goods, and arranging food changes. Given that the season 

 only lasts about 3 weeks this year, how many times did the Factory 

 Trawlers use these ports for these purposes? 



Mr. Blum. For 1993, I'm not aware that they did at all. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. OK. I want to also ask you about the — we talked 

 about the jobs issues, and I care about workers, whether they're in 

 Gray's Harbor, Newport, Oregon, or New York City. Isn't it more 

 labor intensive to use the onshore vessels? You look at the chain 

 and number of jobs, factory trawlers offshore and how many jobs 

 that creates versus how many jobs you create in processing here 

 onshore? 



Mr. Blum. Regionwide, including the fisheries in Alaska, and 

 that's a part of the Factory Trawler and the Magnuson Act juris- 

 diction, if you will, we employ approximately 10,000 people on the 

 vessels, with wages that are above minimum wage. They come, as I 

 said, from I believe 48 or 49 of the States, and I'm not sure labor 

 intensive — 10,000 of those jobs on Factory Trawler sector on the 

 west coast, I think, is fairly labor intensive, paying good wages, 

 what the folks themselves, some of whom are your constituents, 

 will tell you are family wages. They can make it throughout a year 

 if we have decent fishing time in the North Pacific and the Pacific. 



So, in the Nation, in the analysis that was done on in shore and 

 offshore in Alaska and the analysis that is done in whiting, if you 

 roll the two together, the Nation benefits substantially from the at- 

 sea sector. In fact, the Alaska in shore/offshore, and I realize that's 

 not your particular issue, but it's a part of the overall equation, the 

 original allocation onshore in Alaska would have cost the Nation 

 upward of $200 million because it was allocating to a less-efficient 

 sector of the industry, and the point being that the at-sea sector is 

 a part of the U.S. fishing economy and needs to be recognized as 

 such. It's a major competitor in the world fish market, just as the 

 shore-side folks are. 



Mr. KoPETSKL Those folks are catching lots of other fish as well 

 beyond the whiting. 



Mr. Blum. That's correct. 



Mr. Kopetskl There is a provision, it's my understanding, Mr. 

 Warrens, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there is special consider- 

 ation in the Magnuson Act for communities for special instances to 



