29 



director to abstain from highly controversial issues, I assume, as a 

 matter of policy. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. So, that's really no consequence, the fact that he 

 abstained? That's pretty normal? 



Mr. Warrens. No. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. Mr. Johnson, I guess you are a little bit more con- 

 cerned. Maybe what's past is past and we ought to go on, but I'm a 

 little worried about this decisionmaking process. 



Do you know of any meetings between the Trawlers Association, 

 companies, trawler lobbyists, and the Washington State delegation? 



Mr. Johnson. I would have no way of knowing that. I assume 

 that they were in contact with the delegations. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. But you had never heard that they were? 



Mr. Johnson. Not specifically. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. How about with any of those entities and Com- 

 merce employees? 



Mr. Johnson. I know that there was a meeting. Mr. Blum has 

 already referred to it. I had heard that the National Marine Fish- 

 eries Service's staff met with each side. I was not present at those 

 meetings. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. How about meetings with OMB and the Trawlers 

 Association or lobbyists? 



Mr. Johnson. I have no knowledge of that. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. The White House? 



Mr. Johnson. I have no knowledge of that. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. Now, in your statement, you had said that what 

 sort of set off the alarm was that some Washington, DC economists 

 didn't like the economics of what was going on. 



Mr. Johnson. It is not a question of the economics. I would think 

 that if the economics had substantiated the position that the coun- 

 cil had proffered, they would have told us that. 



They told us the markets were so volatile that many of the 

 surimi products processed in the preceding year were still in inven- 

 tory in Japan. They hadn't been sold, and the price was dropping. 



As a result of that, what the council had projected to be a posi- 

 tive benefit when they did their work, was not perceived later on 

 in the process as still being a positive benefit. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. So, I guess, Mr. Warrens, the council did an eco- 

 nomic analysis, and NMFS did, and it showed an advantage to 

 shore-based processing through higher utilization; is that right? 



Mr. Warrens. Congressman Kopetski, as I stated earlier, the 

 analysis on whiting was the most in-depth, complete analysis that 

 we have ever come up with for a west coast fishery. In fact, Mr. 

 Pries, from the National Marine Fisheries, presented us with vol- 

 umes of economic information. 



Mr. Kopetski. You are aware that includes what is going on in 

 the world market and what the Japanese are doing? 



Mr. Warrens. That was clearly pointed out through testimony to 

 the council. 



Mr. Kopetski. All of this before you made your decision? 



Mr. Warrens. Before we made the decision, yes. 



Mr. Kopetski. But some Washington, DC economists didn't 

 accept that? 



Mr. Johnson. That's correct. 



