Are we really being penny wise and pound foolish by spending so much money on things that have a very vague and maybe long term aspect?

Such decisions made without adequate scientific information are unacceptable.

The lack of regulations has created uncertainty in the region and has had an adverse impact on job creation and the local economy.

This is not acceptable.

I would urge you, consistent with your agency's mission to 'conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet our Nation's economic, social and environmental needs' to be a part of the development of this approach...

Old data means your scientists and fishery managers include multiple layers of precaution when running their models.

I don't think there is.

Old data means that your scientists and fisher managers include multiple layers of precaution when running their models.

Lower harvest levels mean fishery closures or restrictions which means less jobs and more economic harm to coastal communities.

I am sympathetic to both concerns.

I think that we lost a couple of them in the oceans here not too long ago.

How do you set that priority in terms of fisheries? Who gets the attention first?

I look forward to a robust oversight of NOAA's programs and activities to ensure that species, coastal areas--and American jobs--are protected.

I am troubled that these executive branch actions are moving forward without Congressional or statutory approval.

I fully support the role of these agencies in gathering sensitive and necessary information to safeguard the interest of the United States.

The subcommittee will come to order.

Among the biggest contributors to this problem is the new health care law.

With so many struggling through a tough economy, it's important we remember that the IRS affects every household and business across the country.