25 



I think first and foremost the problem is one of expectation, and 

 that is, as Gary mentioned, people would just like to keep fishing 

 and have their losses covered. That is a totally unrealistic expecta- 

 tion. That is not going to happen. That's not going to happen be- 

 cause the resource won't allow it, and that won't happen because 

 we don't have the printing presses to print the money that that 

 would require. We are working with a $30 million pot. And it's im- 

 portant to put that in perspective at the hearing here in New Bed- 

 ford. It was pointed out that New Bedford losses in landings alone 

 from 1992 to 1993 were $50 million. That's in 1993 before any of 

 the provisions of amendment 4 for scallops and amendment 5 for 

 groundfish took place. So, that is a 1-year loss to one port of $50 

 million, not including multipliers. So, to understand what we're 

 trying to work with as we fashion the best way to spend $30 mil- 

 lion, we need to understand that it simply cannot make up for the 

 losses suffered in this port and in the Northeast in 1993, 1994, 

 1995 and all of the years which the constraints are going to in- 

 crease. 



Second, you have witnessed here in testimony some of the con- 

 flicts we are trying to deal with, the conflicts between the need to 

 get money out to alleviate immediate need, versus the desire to 

 hold back spending any of the money until we have a vision process 

 in place. Now, we can do one of those or the other, but it's hard 

 to ao both of those. 



You're also getting a sense in the testimony about regional con- 

 flicts, how folks in some ports would like to be able to fish 

 unencumbered by any review by the National Marine Fisheries 

 Service and yet ftdks in other ports have said we cannot allow the 

 shifting of effort from one part of the region to another. There are 

 reasons put forth why we cannot move into aquaculture, why we 

 can't move into underutilized species, why we cannot do almost 

 anything. The only thing I know is we cannot do what we've always 

 done. Change is inevitable. 



There was also an issue raised about State relationships, and 

 clearly I want to reemphasize that we've developed verv good rela- 

 tionships with some of the States. We look forward to tneir partici- 

 pation. We look forward to the State of Massachusetts following up 

 on Representative Tarr and other members of the delegations' ini- 

 tiative to bring other significant resources. 



The other conflict, another theme that's been raised by Chip and 

 many other speakers, and yourself included, is the need to reduce 

 capacity. And the fact that while there's a lot of support for vessel 

 buyout in this $30 million, there is no money for that. Secretary 

 Brown has said that he wants to keep this issue on the table. We 

 are working with an industry group, and hopefully we can identify 

 how a buyout process would work, what it would cost and how we 

 would raise the funding for it. 



The last thing I'd like to respond to is the issue of private initia- 

 tive. These grants require private initiative. In applying for the 

 fishing industry grants, we are asking people to think a lot. The 

 application is only 4 or 5 pages, but it requires someone to think 

 about a new way of fishing. It requires a person to think about 

 something that will benefit not only themselves, but the industry 

 at large. It requires private initiative. And whether it's the develop- 



