21 



with distributing those, issuing them and the people who have to 

 get two permits. 



An additional cost that would be eliminated would be the entire 

 Federal Council process which in order to implement, for example, 

 amendment one that has been discussed already would require 

 from the day that it is actually prepared and submitted to the Sec- 

 retary at least 140 days to get it in place. 



The Commission could probably get that implemented faster 

 than 140 days. So the ability to respond to changes in the stocks 

 is faster under the Commission than the Commission and the 

 Council. 



So there are improvements to the system that I can't quantify for 

 you but those efficiencies are certainly intended to be there. I will 

 be glad to try to address then the issue of insensitivity and the 

 other adjectives that you described. It certainly was not without a 

 great deal of thought that the Fisheries Service has proposed the 

 removal of this particular plan. 



From our perspective with what I have just answered to Mr. 

 Pallone's question, it is our view that we would be making things 

 for the resource potentially much better because the burdensome 

 processes that now exist would be less without there being any re- 

 duction in protection that the fish could get because whether there 

 is a Council plan or a plan done by the Commission and managed 

 as we have proposed, the only area that we are talking about regu- 

 lations affecting is in the E.E.Z. over which the Secretary has in 

 both cases the final decision on what regulations are applicable 

 there. 



So the problems that this creates from the standpoint of what ac- 

 tually happens under both systems would be less with the proposal 

 than the way we are today and that is the reason for the proposal. 



So from our view we have been frankly very sensitive; sensitive 

 to the public's concerns, sensitive to protecting the fish and sen- 

 sitive to trying to reduce Federal involvement in what are predomi- 

 nately state matters. 



Mr. Pallone. I realize that but the problem that I see here is 

 sort of like the framers of the Constitution with checks and bal- 

 ances. Why do you need a Senate and a House of Representatives? 



You can get rid of one but if you do that and I guess you would 

 speed up the process but then there would be less public input and 

 less time to think about what is going on and why we are doing 

 things. 



So you don't convince me. I am not trying to be disrespectful but 

 you don't convince me that by creating more efficiency that we nec- 

 essarily get a better product. I would be concerned if by stepping 

 up the process and doing everything quickly there is going to be 

 less public input and less opportunity to maybe think about what 

 we are doing. 



Mr. Saxton. Let me just follow up. If NMFS doesn't participate 

 in the planning process and that the plan comes from the Atlantic 

 States Marine Fisheries Commission then when we get into the im- 

 plementation of that plan and the exclusive economic zone we 

 would do it through the Magnuson Act or in conjunction with the 

 Magnuson Act and then you would be involved anyway. Isn't that 

 true? 



