152 



o^tchcr vessels, fhctory trawlon). Thoy should alao have takea into coniridoration 

 ciitch hiRtoiy (lo"8'^i^ *" ^ firficiy). 



TJie July 1 1, 1978, Congressional Record carries an account of the discussion on 

 He floor of the House of House Resolution 13340 known as the Procc«of 

 Preference Amoadmcnl (PL 95-334). This amendmom was uoanfiTWUsly voted 

 o\^ of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and had the support 

 of all scgpiwtts of the fishing industry, ircluding both our donwstic and distant 

 water flshcnncn, our domestic seafood processors, and Department of State and 

 Cfmmcroe". (Mr.Studd8,Mas8.) 



During that discussion, Mr. Foreythe (New Jersey), the ranking minority member 



olithe subcomniittee, stated: 



"It is therefore not intended that U.S. fishermen must satisfy the 

 requirements of U. S. processors before the fishennon can sell fish to a 

 fbroign processor. Nor is it intended that U.S. fisbemicn should be 

 compelled to sell their products to U.S. proeessor8...[I]t is not the 

 ! committee's intent, nor is it my intent, to force fishermen and processor! Into 

 a business arrangement which they would not vohintarily enter into 

 otherwise.* 



Mjr. Riippe (Michigan), the ranking member of the fiiU committee, goes on to say: 

 It is not the committee's intent to put fishcnncn at the mercy offish 

 processors to the extort that if fish processors have the capacity to process 

 the fish harvestol, the fishermen in turn would have to sell at whatever price 

 the processors themselves would offer, ft should be understood that we in no 

 way want to make fiie fishing Industiy subjoc* to the tenns and conditions 

 , that might be unilaterally established by the U.S. processor indiistry." 



The Congressional Record also notes the concurrence of Mr. Young (AlaskaX Mr, 

 A<»Coin (Oregon), and Mr. Clausen and Mr. Legget (California), all with 

 cojisiituonts that participate in the groundflsh fish^cs. In addition, Senator 

 Stevens (Alaska) and Senator Magnuson (Washington), in a joint statement before 

 1h^ fill! Senate, agreed that the objectives of both bodies were the same. 



\/hat the Processor Preference Amendment did was provide a vehicle that 

 esfabliRhcd the priorities that would govern Ucensing of foreign processing vessels. 

 The highest priority was given to fish caught and processed by the U.S. finhing 

 Industry. Scccmd came fish caught by U.S. fishermen and purchased by forei^ 

 pi5ces.Hing vessels, The lowest priorfty went to foreign fishermen. There was no 

 mention 5" preferences between different aegnwu^ts of tiie U.S. fishing industiy 

 itself. Indeed, the nwnbers of both houses of Congress M that the US. processor 



