I will convey that to the Chairman for you. I think the Republican staff might not remember to do that.

if we say let's move and mandate that we move ahead with electronic monitoring, but say it can't be used for enforcement, that doesn't seem to me that that is going to meet the objectives here.

Having held a meeting on the coast of my district recently, a meeting with fishermen, they expressed a lot of concern about some proposed wind and wave energy off the coast.

I would hope that, if that is the case, you would respond back to the committee in a very timely manner.

I think, from our standpoint, from representing commercial fishermen, we are very wary of any attempt to try and change the NEPA process.

Instead, we are considering legislation that would undo 20 years of fisheries reforms fought for by members like Gerry Studds from Massachusetts and Ted Stevens from Alaska.

It is unfortunate that we find ourselves here today debating legislation that the Democratic side of the aisle had no part in developing.

If all those 'nots' that the Chairman talked about are sincere, then we need to make a lot of revisions to this bill to deliver on the promise that it is not doing those things.

The key word: flexibility.

The Minority can invite additional witnesses to discuss a number of provisions in the bill.

I would like to see a more adroit bureaucracy.

And all we have right now is we hold fishing communities accountable for the lack of productivity that might be happening on a cyclical basis in nature.

So, your concern is that if we have data that shows, particularly where they want to put it, is a prime fishing area, well stocked, we couldn't use that data to oppose it.

I have said all along that I believe the Act is fundamentally sound.

This draft addresses the requests of fishermen, fishing communities, fishery management Councils.

We can't do it with fairy dust. We have got to do it with some practical, commonsense means on how we are going to invest in every region of America.

I was pleased to hear you announce at the beginning of the hearing that you had agreed to schedule hearings on rail safety.

I think the chairman said it in his opening remarks, the Federal Government has always had a constitutional role that creating a national system of transportation that supports the common good.

If we wind up with a patchwork of 50 different solutions, you don't have a network, and that is some of the heartburn we see today.

I mean it seems to me that an incompetent contractor was hired.

At the end of the day, this issue is about protecting the jobs of thousands of Americans and ensuring that families have access to affordable electricity.

If the Majority was tasked with investigating the Hindenburg disaster, the title of the hearing would be: 'The Obama Administration's War on Blimps.'

His complaints did indicate that he perceived political influence as part of the reasoning for the 2008 rule to be directed to be used.

I don't like wasting money.

This IG report is further evidence of a grossly mismanaged rulemaking process that has gone on for 5 years and has cost over $9 million taxpayer dollars, with absolutely nothing to show for it.