194 



- 10 - 



However, with virtually no explanation Congress simply 

 deleted this provision from the Act in 1982. 1Z Interestingly, 

 when the original legislation was pending before the conference 

 committee the House bill had a mandatory hearing requirement at 

 the Secretarial level, whereas the Senate version had a five- 

 member presidentially appointed review board performing a similar 

 function. Both were dropped in conference in favor of the 

 optional hearing provision. 13 



This review of the evolution of the FCMA is not intended to 

 suggest that the original Act was perfect nor that we simply need 

 restore its original provisions in order to solve current 

 management problems. These changes were made to address very 

 specific and often legitimate concerns over the past 18 years. 

 Now, however, they have been overtaken by the more pressing need 

 to find a rational system for allocating valuable and diminishing 

 resources among various U.S. user groups. 



What can be done? — Specific Recommendat ions for FCMA Amendments 

 Conflicts of Interest 



As already noted, the Act requires council members and 

 other "affected individuals" to disclose their financial 



Pub L. No. 97-453 



13 see Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of 

 Conference reprinted in A Legislative History of the Fishery 

 Conservation and Management Act of 1976, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. 91 

 (Comm. Print 1976) . 



