Peter DeFazio

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.

I view the provision in the draft discussion bill as saying that whenever you issue a fishery management rule, which is a critical part for some species recovery, that that has to be done in the Magnuson Act.

So you are basically putting the blame back on the Councils for slow implementation.

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.

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.

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

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.

Without fish, there is no fishing industry.

The fishermen who are directly impacted have requested flexibility.

The key word: flexibility.

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

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

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.

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 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.

I don't like wasting money.

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

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

But you recount the testimony of the former Office of Surface Mining regulatory support division chief, who was later relieved, that his testimony makes it sound like it was all political.

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

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.

The purpose of these hearings is not to gather information on the real economic or environmental challenges we face; these hearings are nothing more than political attacks on the Administration.