227 



page 4 



There is however another test of the system; the implementation of the license 

 limitation system. As you may know, the American Factory Trawler Association has filed 

 suit against this system. I would like to make it known now that if the license limitation 

 system, developed over the last several years does not go forward. I will view thia as 

 another assault on good government and another example of the Department of 

 Commerce caving Into factory trawler interests at the expense of the shore-based fishery. 



I'd like to close by emphasizing that I am not advocating a diminished role for the 

 Secretary of Commerce. However, in my opinion, the Secretary should not be 

 substituting his policy judgment with that of the Council's, In fact I would hope that, if 

 Commerce wants more of a policy role, the agency should contribute its input at the 

 beginning of the process instead of at the end, as we have seen in several other fishery 

 allocation decisions in addition to Pacific whiting. This way if the plan is legal, 

 adequately justified and sufficient in its documentation, Commerce could leave the 

 allocation process to the Council's as the Magnuson Act intended. 



The experience of last spring's whiting aEocation debacle is a graphic illustration 

 of the urgent need for this committee to address council accountability, conservation 

 incentives, and waste and bycatch concerns as you move to reauthorize the Magnuson 

 Act. 



