long-term development strategy that's really important to Oregon's 

 coastal economy. 



Chairman Wyden. Without objection, we will enter that record 

 at this point, and the Governor has spoken to our delegation, to 

 many of us, on this issue, and she feels very, very strongly about it 

 and is very committed to some new approaches, and we appreciate 

 her leadership. 



[The letter may be found in the appendix.] 



Mr. Andrews. I would ask that you at some point read the en- 

 closed testimony, and I will just make a few brief points so that 

 you can get on with those who are more affected by it. 



The State of Oregon has a vested interest in this fishery. It's an 

 interest that dates back many years where we've been trying to 

 work with the local communities in developing an economic re- 

 source for the coastal communities, not only for primary process- 

 ing, not only for the fishing fleet, but also for the outfall of addi- 

 tional processes and products that this type of industry produces, 

 secondary processing and the related multiplied benefits that go 

 out to the entire community. 



We've entered into this and spent many thousands of dollars and 

 been in consort with other State agencies to try to work from this 

 process from the very beginning. We have testified numerous times 

 in front of the council and laid out a very thoughtful and concise 

 program of how we could develop the economic potential of this 

 valuable resource. We find that the current situation from the De- 

 partment of Commerce is not only unacceptable, it's really unex- 

 plainable in terms of both its process and its direction. It makes 

 little sense in the face of the evidence. It makes little sense in the 

 face of the commitment of not only the State and local govern- 

 ment, but of its own management and decisionmaking process. 



That's one of the things that I really want to point out today. It's 

 the process that's not in question. Obviously, I would expect the 

 factory trawlers to make whatever point that they can make on 

 behalf of their own industry, but when we go through a system 

 where we have allocated, and put our best case forward, and have 

 received the support from the Pacific Fisheries and Management 

 Council for a number of years, then to have it overturned at the 

 last moment, the very last moment, we then brought into question 

 who is and what will the decisionmaking process be? If not the Pa- 

 cific Fisheries Management Council, who will make these deci- 

 sions? Let us know so that we can make this case in front of them, 

 because, clearly, we can't divest and invest enormous amounts of 

 energy, time, and money in a decisionmaking process that will not 

 be accepted, will not be looked after, or will not be utilized. 



Last of all, I think it's incumbent upon the State to try to work 

 through this process with the Department of Commerce to under- 

 stand where their decisionmaking points are, and if, in fact, we are 

 not reaching them with the type of information or the right kind of 

 information, we would ask them to tell us precisely what it is that 

 they need from us in order that we may reach the decisionmakers, 

 because, clearly, you have a lot of people out here who are working 

 under the impression that the time and energy that they spend 

 with the Pacific Fishery Management Council, indeed, is produc- 

 tive. What this does is pull the stool or the legs out from that deci- 



