8 



sionmaking process, and that's what we so much object to here 

 today. 



I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in front of 

 you, and I will defer to the many local interests who talk about the 

 economic impact, which is considerable, because the one thing that 

 I want, when I leave here, is people will ask, why Agriculture? 

 Well, fisheries is agriculture. It's food, and it's part of this State's 

 value added strategy, and without that strategy, I think the re- 

 sources of our coastal communities, along with some of the other 

 resources of our rural communities throughout this State, will be 

 greatly impaired. 



Thank you very much. 



[Mr. Andrew's statement, with attachment, may be found in the 

 appendix.] 



Chairman Wyden. Well, thank you, and let me recognize Con- 

 gressman Kopetski and start some questions. 



Mr. Kopetski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One point I want to 

 bring out from your testimony is that it's my understanding that 

 this isn't just a fishery that happened along. This was a targeted 

 fishery that the State put its resources, thought, and money behind 

 in terms of developing. Is that true? 



Mr. Andrews. Clearly. In fact, this has been in the works, at 

 least for our department, for 6 years now, and through the good 

 efforts of the coastal fishermen, under the leadership of Barry 

 Fisher, we've worked long and hard to recognize this is a potential 

 resource and how to capture not only the utilization of the fishery 

 fleet itself, but the shore-based processors, and we've looked at the 

 marketing of this, not only domestically but internationally. We've 

 looked at some of the value-added components that we could make 

 from this. We've looked at some of the additional total resource al- 

 locations, the byproducts from it, and the environmental impacts of 

 it. So, it's been well thought out. It's part of, in fact, the State's 

 benchmark process. So, it's critical to planning of not only Oregon 

 but other States that go through this type of planning process to 

 have that type of decisionmaking process circuitously circumvent- 

 ed. 



Mr. Kopetski. OK. I just want to point out also that the State 

 and the communities do receive landing fees and taxes from on- 

 shore fisheries, whereas the offshore folks, the sea-based fisheries 

 and processors, don't pay these landing fees or taxes. Is that cor- 

 rect? 



Mr. Andrews. Well, not only that, but if you look at the myriad 

 of jobs, not only from the fishing fleet, but of the factories or the 

 processors or the suppliers to those, the secondary, the transporta- 

 tion that moves the product in there, these are Oregonian jobs that 

 we're talking about and who all pay local property taxes, who pay 

 income tax, who pay State income tax, and Federal income tax. So, 

 it ripples throughout the entire community, not only from the 

 coast but inland as well. 



Mr. Kopetski. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank 

 you, Mr. Chairman. 



Chairman Wyden. Bruce, just one question, and I think you 

 heard me characterize the process as arbitrary, it struck me as a 

 seat-of-the-pants kind of exercise, and, obviously, we want to make 



