I can assure you that, at least from my perspective, full funding for NOAA and NMFS... has been something that I have been advocating for since I got to the Senate.

I think it starts at the regional level.

We are very concerned about the next draft of MSA and how it goes through.

Can you explain that term? It is used a lot. I just want other Senators, who are going to be looking at this transcript and their staff, as we talk about the broader issues what that term means when you talk about 'the race to fish' and…

We literally are the super power of seafood and probably considered the best managed fishery--certainly not without its challenges--but the best managed fishery in the United States and probably in the world.

To have a static regulation in that kind of environment is not a good idea.

I think that is where the relationship really can benefit the most is a willingness for NOAA to divest itself of management responsibilities.

Still put the fish first. Suck it up and take the hit so you have a resource in the future.

It is an important question and when it is statutorily defined and has not been reviewed, I think it is a legitimate question to ask.

It does seem uneven in different regions.

I have certainly learned a lot and look forward to continuing to engage with all the different stakeholders here on this very, very important topic as we move forward.

Alaska's fisheries are, by far, the largest in the Nation accounting for well over 50 percent of all total domestic landings in the country.

I think there should be a better way to express a stock that is depressed from fishing versus a stock that is depressed from an environmental or other factor.

Parochially, the original design of the Magnuson Act gave Alaska six votes.

It is working well. Do no harm.

But are we not seeing a migration of fish stocks north, or is that just anecdotal?

Nothing is more important than stock assessments and surveys.

But by having the CEQ member be the one that is typically recused that threatens Alaska's ability to have a strong voice on these issues.

Is it not a bit ironic? Because is it not part of the reason to have the Council put together that you want to choose members who actually are involved in the industry, and involved in fisheries issues, and know a lot about it, which…

The key is providing the greatest overall benefit to the U.S., the entire country, to recreational opportunity and seafood harvest without jeopardizing conservation.

We do agree that data is critical especially when it has such huge implications to big decisions.

I am asking this because I know there might be different views, which is the whole point of the hearing.

I think that the 10-year rebuilding timeline is arbitrary.

I think it is going to take a lot of work.

Well, by the way, just so everybody knows, he was supported by every council and every region.