50 



The statute is now 68 pages long, and obviously about to be 

 added to, I assume, which is a little bit frightening. We never imag- 

 ined the unique and strange creatures known as fishery manage- 

 ment councils when we first introduced the law. They sort of grew 

 as we have debated it in the year or two thereafter. 



I don't think we would ever create them again exactly as they 

 are from scratch. Let me just ask you, I know you can't get it in 

 detail, and I did not hear all the testimony, but did anybody sug- 

 gest rethinking totally the creatures known as fishery management 

 councils or simply tinkering with them? 



I mean, I can imagine the yelps that would go up at this point if 

 we tried in the current climate to create management agencies 

 populated in large measure by the regulated industry. 



Ms. Graham. Congressman, we are strong supporters of the 

 council system as it exists. We believe that local problems can best 

 be handled in the place where they are coming from. We like the 

 balance of authority that is in the Act right now so that the Secre- 

 tary is able to take care of these conflicts of interest that tend to 

 arise, but we like having fishermen talk about and have the au- 

 thority to decide what happens to those fisheries. Their livelihoods 

 depend on it, and actually most of them do a pretty good job of 

 taking care of the resource. We like it. 



Mr. Jensen. Mr. Chairman, I think the process is fine in one 

 sense, but what we are talking about or I am talking about here is 

 a move to strengthen NOAA stewardship in our Nation's fisheries 

 resource and to ensure the council decisions are in compliance with 

 the intent of the national standards. I think that is very important. 



The second thing with that that I think has been overlooked and 

 maybe should be discussed at some point or thought about is to 

 support a national review body independent of NOAA to assume 

 responsibility for examination of council plans in terms of conform- 

 ance to national standards. That is a real concern. And whether it 

 is the National Academy of Sciences or some other type of review 

 board, I think that is something that should seriously be looked at 

 because you need an independent body to take some of the politics, 

 excuse the word, out of the process that gets so involved in it, and I 

 think that is something that we should seriously look at, and that 

 is in my written testimony. 



Mr. Easley. Mr. Chairman, I think if you come up with a system 

 that didn't include the wide public participation that the council 

 allows, you would have a wail from the industry at least that you 

 would continue to hear for a long time. 



Chairman Studds. My question, as you can imagine, reflects the 

 frustration of those of us in New England at the moment with the 

 system. Let me just say that Mr. Young and I, if we have to get in 

 a major rewriting of this statute, we are going to rename it. It is 

 going to be the "Young-Studds Act." 



Mr. M anton. On that note, the Chair will recognize the gentle- 

 woman from Washington. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. How do I follow that? We have heard several com- 

 ments, and I would agree, that the council, there is a lot to be said 

 positively about the council system, but Mr. Looney, in your view 

 can the conflict of interest issue be addressed at the council level 

 or is a change in the Act going to be needed? 



