192 



8 - 



that there was an implied exemption from the federal conflict of 

 interest statutes, but that too was limited. 8 



The Congressional recognition of the problem and response to 

 the inherent tension in the Act was two- fold. First, Congress 

 added financial disclosure requirements for the voting members 

 and the executive director of each council. 9 What Congress did 

 not do is also significant: it did not require a recusal 

 mechanism. It was not an oversight, for your Committee Report 

 observed that nothing in the legislation would prohibit a council 

 from establishing such a recusal procedure nor would the council 

 be prevented from requiring its members to identify publicly any 

 potential conflicts of interest at its meetings. 10 As your 

 Fisheries Management Subcommittee learned in response to 

 questioning at the first of these hearings earlier this year only 

 three of the eight councils appear to have taken any steps toward 

 adopting these kinds of requirements. 



The second Congressional response to the conflicts issues 

 that were raised in 1985 was more puzzling. Rather than attempt 

 to tailor a specific exemption from the federal conflicts 



8 Memorandum from Marilyn G. Wagner, Assistant General 

 Counsel for Administration to Irving P. Margulies, Acting General 

 Counsel re: applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 208 to Regional Fishery 

 Management Council Members and Advisory Panel Members (Dec. 23, 

 1983) . 



9 Pub. L. No. 99-659. 



10 H.R. Rep. No. 165, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. 21 (1985), 

 reprinted in 1985 U.S. CODE CONG. & ADMIN. NEWS 6249, 6261. 



