30 



Mr. KoPETSKi. They threw the tons of testimony out the window 

 and said, "They are wrong." How many economists is this? Is this 

 one or five? 



Mr. Johnson. I believe there were two economists at the Nation- 

 al Marine Fisheries Service who initially reviewed it and came to 

 that conclusion that it wasn't an adequate analysis to draw the 

 conclusions the council drew. Subsequently, during our discussions 

 with 0MB, two of the professional staff economists at 0MB came 

 to the same conclusions. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. Mr. Warrens, did your folks out here use Com- 

 merce data. Commerce information, to create this cost benefit anal- 

 ysis? 



Mr. Warrens. Yes; in 1992, with the disapproval of that plan, 

 National Marine Fisheries informed us that we would be required 

 for the 1993 analysis to include net benefits to the Nation. That's 

 what invoked this rather lengthy and voluminous economic report 

 which the National Marine Fisheries played a large role in. We 

 were made abundantly aware of the contents of that analysis. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. Did you use Commerce data? I'm told it's supposed 

 to be the best of data around for economic analyses? 



Mr. Warrens. We did use their analysis. As a matter of fact, we 

 leaned more heavily upon that than we did our own staff econo- 

 mists in light of this situation which could have been construed as 

 a conflict of interest with our own staff economists. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. How many economists did you use? 



Mr. Warrens. We have a contract economist. It was his analysis 

 that was given less weight in our final decision because of the prox- 

 imity and potential conflict of interest. So, we relied entirely on 

 our PFMC staff economics and National Marine Fisheries econo- 

 mists. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. So, that is two, right? 



Mr. Warrens. Yes. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. Then did people reviewing these studies use their 

 economists, whether it is the trawlers or the processors or others? 

 Did they have economists who reviewed this? 



Mr. Warrens. They may have had their economists review it. 

 However, I don't recall that any information from other economic 

 sources or analysis were made to the council with respect to any 

 alternative numbers that we were given. 



By and large, though, the volumes of information with respect to 

 the economic analysis came from the National Marine Fisheries 

 with support from the PFMC staff economists. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. Well, we're not going to make any economist 

 jokes. 



[Laughter.] 



Mr. KoPETSKi. How much time did these four economists in 

 Washington, DC study this issue and come up with their decision? 



Mr. Johnson. I think they did it during the public comment 

 period. They reviewed all the data that were available. They were 

 specifically asked to give us their best judgment as to whether the 

 council had made its case. We don't go into these things trying to 

 disapprove the Pacific Council's recommendations. We have not 

 had to do so very often. 



