53 



Second, we will look closely at why the Department of Commerce 

 seemingly ignored its own decision making process for the whiting 

 fishery by rejecting the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

 recommendation. We will explore why the process for determining 

 the equitable allocation of whiting between shore-based vessels, 

 factory trawlers, mother-ships, and shore based processors was 

 tossed over the side without explanation. The allocation decision 

 has resulted in accusations of political favoritism, environmental 

 insensitivity, and distrust of government and its ability to manage 

 this critical resource. 



Third, this decision comes with a high cost for the people of 

 Newport and other communities in the region. The small fishing 

 fleets and on-shore processors that are suffering as a result of 

 this decision are, in many instances, the economic back-bone of 

 their local communities. When these businesses suffer, when shore- 

 based jobs are eliminated, when communities lose the heart of their 

 economic base, there had better be a pretty good reason. However, 

 no one, especially the Department of Commerce, has yet put forward 

 a good reason. 



We are here to listen and learn, and ensure that the process 

 that the Department of Commerce uses to determine the future of 

 this fishery fully addresses the important needs of this region's 

 coastal communities. 



I want to thank my good friend Mike Kopetski for inviting the 

 subcommittee here today. I want to thank all of the individuals 

 who have agreed to testify this morning and we look forward to 

 their insights and advice. Finally, I must caution all our 

 witnesses that time this morning is extremely tight. The 

 subcommittee will place all written comments in the record in their 

 entirety, but oral presentations must be limited to five minutes or 

 we will not have the time we need to ask questions and engage in a 

 dialogue with the panels about their testimony. 



