28 



have a closed mind on this issue. We hope that the council will go 

 back and look at some of these other factors and that we will re- 

 consider this issue in 1994 if necessary. 



I will say that I take some responsibility for the delay that was 

 occasioned in getting this decision announced. The recommenda- 

 tion came in during the previous administration. It is one of my 

 responsibilities, as a career lawyer, to apprise the incoming admin- 

 istration of decisions that were made by the preceding one so that 

 they can reach their own conclusions. 



We had extensive briefings with Diana Josephson to explain to 

 her what the whiting issue was all about before she made her deci- 

 sion. The record is clear. We have revealed not only the decision 

 memorandum that she signed approving the action, but also a deci- 

 sion memorandum that she had rejected. 



Ordinarily those kinds of documents are retained within the ex- 

 ecutive branch and are not made public. We made it public in this 

 case because we thought it would help the pubic understand the de- 

 cisions that were made. 



At that point, I think I will conclude my remarks. I will be 

 pleased to answer any questions you have. 



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

 appendix.] 



Chairman Wyden. Mr. Johnson, I am going to call Mr. Warrens 

 back to the witness table with the Pacific Fisheries Management 

 Council because I must say I find myself very curious now as to 

 several things that are going on. I just want to ask Mr. Warrens a 

 question and then recognize my colleague. Then I will take others. 



Mr. Warrens, let me remind you that you still remain under 

 oath for purposes of your testimony today. 



Mr. Johnson said that the National Marine Fisheries Service had 

 warned you about problems with the decision, Mr. Schmitten spe- 

 cifically. Is that correct? 



Mr. Warrens. Congressman Wyden, Mr. Schmitten frequently 

 warns us that some of our decisions are getting very close to the 

 line. He does so in a constructive manner. This was one of those 

 times, when at the November meeting, Rollie again reminded us 

 that we were making an allocated decision, which is always subject 

 to Secretarial disapproval. 



However, I don't recall at that November meeting that he specif- 

 ically pointed out any particular part of our decision that was in- 

 consistent with applicable law or the National Standards. 



Chairman Wyden. So, an5rthing he might have said would have 

 been sort of boiler plate, the kind of thing he would say generally, 

 and he didn't mention an3d;hing specifically on the 9 to 2 decision 

 that you made that was inconsistent with Federal law? 



Mr. Warrens. To the best of my recollection, he did not specifi- 

 cally make any statement of an issue that was outside it. 



Chairman Wyden. Let me recognize my friend for questions. This 

 will be helpful to have you both here. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Just a quick followup with Mr. Warrens. Is it normal that re- 

 gional directors abstain from these kinds of votes? 



Mr. Warrens. It's almost routine anytime the council votes on 

 any sort of emergency action. It is not uncommon for the regional 



