10 



in your opening remarks. Even before Secretary Brown's announce- 

 ment of the relief package, industry members were largely agreed 

 on the need for a buy-back. An industry group is working on the 

 design of buy-back, and an interim report is available from East 

 Coast Fisheries. Without a buy-back, the problem will again almost 

 certainly be pushed south, exactly the fear Rhode Island has noted 

 above. 



However, even with a buy-back, it would finance exit strategies 

 for some, but hardly all fishermen. More attention is needed to de- 

 velop exit strategies for the larger and yet indeterminable number 

 of hands and others idled by restrictions. 



I am frankly frustrated by glib talk about retraining fishermen 

 and other industry workers, family members, et cetera, who will be 

 dislocated by amendment 5. We have the means to offer retraining 

 of the Dislocated Workers Program. But the question remains, re- 

 training for what? This region is still wrestling with workforce re- 

 training issues associated with the end of the cold war. And we're 

 now adding another industry segment to the list of idle workers. 



Last I'd Tike to comment briefly on the family assistance center 

 concept from the perspective of Rhode Island, and also I'm explic- 

 itly speaking on behalf of my counterpart in Connecticut. 



There is confusion and frustration over the mobile fishing family 

 assistance center approach which the NMFS has inaugurated and 

 seems determined to continue in its present form despite repeated 

 requests for reconsideration. The use of the term "family" in con- 

 junction with "assistance center" implies a range of services which 

 NMFS does not and never intends to offer. It's not their job. In 

 those areas where NMFS has established permanent centers they 

 are colocated with State and local job training and service provid- 

 ers. This is not possible with the mobile center approach unless the 

 NMFS FFAC fisheries specialist is colocated with local providers on 

 those days when he or she is in State. 



We would prefer a one-stop shopping arrangement which is not 

 possible if the NMFS specialist goes directly to a port. If the only 

 individual a fisherman sees is the NMFS representative who has 

 information and applications for Federal assistance programs only, 

 they may well miss connecting with the person that they need to 

 see regarding job training and family services. 



Conversely, family members seeking information and assistance 

 are going to be disappointed, confused, and discouraged if they seek 

 family services at a mobile FFAC only to find out they've gone to 

 the wrong office. 



We strongly believe that in the absence of a permanent facility 

 that the current approach by which the FFAC coordinator visits 

 local ports in four States attempting to reach fishermen directly 

 serves to dissipate the resource. We envision as an alternative hav- 

 ing the NMFS FFAC fisheries specialist work more directly with 

 State and/or local employment and training agencies and human 

 service providers. In essence, as a NMFS liaison to us rather than 

 someone who goes directly to the effected fishing community. The 

 specialist coulof provide information and training to our local people 

 who would disseminate the information and receive applications 

 when the coordinator is in another community. 



I'd like to add one final comment before concluding. 



