27 



interest in favoring or disfavoring Oregon over any other State in 

 the Union. I have heard allegations that this was the result of ex- 

 tensive lobbying. 



Diana Josephsen, the one political appointee who was involved 

 and who, in fact, made the decision as Acting Under Secretary of 

 Commerce, refused to meet with either side in this dispute, al- 

 though both sides requested to have such a meeting. 



She did not want to have her decision encumbered by allegations 

 that she was being lobbied by one side or the other. They may have 

 attempted it, but it didn't have any result. 



The facts speak for themselves. We had an economic analysis 

 that did not support the council's action, and we acted accordingly. 

 I will say personally that I have been involved with the administra- 

 tion of the Magnuson Act since 1976 and have known people like 

 Joe Easley since the day I started working for NOAA. 



We do not take our responsibilities lightly. We try to give an 

 honest decision, not influenced by politics. That's what we tried to 

 do in this context. We were interested in seeing that we got 

 through the 1993 season with the minimum amount of disruption 

 to everybody who had participated in this fishery. 



One issue involves why did we limit it to 1 year only. The fact of 

 the matter is there is every indication that the volatility in the 

 world market for these resources is going to increase. We are 

 seeing the Japanese developing new sources of surimi which will 

 compete with our product all over the world. They are developing 

 resources off Vietnam, off Chile, and off Africa. They are searching 

 anywhere they can to try to find substitutes for the products that 

 they are now buying from the United States. 



We are going to be affected by that. We don't know what the ef- 

 fects will be in 1994. For that reason we were very reluctant to con- 

 sider approving a long-term solution. 



There is a problem. There will need to be a sharing of this re- 

 source between the onshore and the offshore sector. There is a need 

 for stability for economic planning, but there are other factors in- 

 volved besides just what the council wishes to do. 



The other factor that inserted a great deal of uncertainty into 

 our long-term decisionmaking is that the Pacific Fishery Manage- 

 ment Council prepared, and the Secretary of Commerce approved, 

 one of the most far-reaching fishery management plan amend- 

 ments just last year. 



That's the Limited Access Amendment that will place every fish- 

 erman along the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California in 

 this fishery under license limitations. Those licenses, to some 

 degree, are going to be transferable within the various sectors and 

 across sectors. 



We have no idea until we implement the 1994 Limited Entry 

 System what effects there are going to be on the people who are 

 now using Pacific whiting. We suspect that most of the factory 

 trawlers will not have an opportunity to fish directly for the re- 

 source. We expect that a great number of smaller coastal boats will 

 have that right. 



We did not understand, and could not possibly understand, at 

 this point what the economic consequences of the council's program 

 would be in 1994 and beyond. The Secretary of Commerce does not 



