Good morning, and welcome to day two. I trust everybody had a pleasant evening last night, and I've enjoyed what pieces of the informal conversations that I've been able to pick up on. As I mentioned yesterday, we're going to shift today into less of an academic study, if you will, of fisheries law and the other management schemes and laws that intersect with them, and really dive into some of the, frankly, challenging issues that fisheries management and all ocean managers are up against these days. So we're very fortunate today to have a diversity of viewpoints and a diversity of backgrounds, which as I mentioned yesterday, I think is reflective of the challenges of these issues. They're just much more interdisciplinary. They're much more complicated as if developing an FMP under Magnificent isn't complicated enough. But we're going to talk about catch shares and those types of allocation schemes this morning, and then go into sort of the kitchen sink panel at the end with energy issues and marine spatial planning under that larger rubric of challenges of the future, and how an existing scheme and an existing law is going to fit into this brave new world that we're entering. So before we do that, we're very lucky to have Eric Schwab here, and I'm going to let Dean Logan introduce him. Thank you, Susan. And I wish I had been here for the dinner last night. I had an event up in Boston I had to go to, but I heard lots of interesting conversations were rebounding around the hall. As I said yesterday, this is really a wonderful opportunity for Roger Williams to bring together experts from a broad range of disciplines and from different perspectives to talk about the challenges historically and now facing us involving fisheries management. And as Susan said, we've put together a really remarkable collection of people. And the next speaker is no exception. Eric Schwab is the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries at the National Marine Fisheries Service at NOAA. And he has really quite a remarkable biography. You know, you used to see people who are like this that have long academic pedigrees or they've got some political connection or whatever. Eric actually started at the ground level working as a law enforcement officer in natural resources in Maryland and has over a 25-year career done a large range of activities in a broad range of professional settings, including local, state, and national. He has a very important job, as the title suggests, and we are delighted to have Eric Schwab with us today to speak to us as a keynote for today's part of the program. Eric? So, good morning, everyone. First, I particularly want to thank Dean Logan, Susan, the university and the institute for putting on this program and inviting me to participate. For those of you who were here yesterday, and I'm just curious how many were. So almost everybody, I know I saw a few new faces in the room today that weren't here yesterday. Yesterday was a great foundation with respect to all of the current understandings, the evolution of Magnuson, the evolution of Magnuson in the context of a number of the other natural resource statutes and natural resource settings that we operate within. And today becomes, I think, another really interesting opportunity for us to discuss not so much the foundation, how we got here, but where we go from here, and particularly some of the cutting edge challenges and issues and opportunities that we face in implementing Magnuson within this brave new world. So I actually had the good fortune of being here yesterday, which probably affords you maybe some good fortune in that I'm going to have significantly modified my presentation, so it's not to repeat everything that was said yesterday in my keynote, which means that I'll also beg your indulgence if I jump around a little bit or my presentation seems somewhat disconnected on occasion. It's because I'm trying to spare you not so much a lack of any preparation on my part. But the other thing that I wanted to note in doing that, what I'm going to try to do is move less from descriptive approaches to more reflective approaches. So while you'll see in a PowerPoint slide some descriptive language, I will try to use that in a brief period of time here as a launching off point for some personal observations about how these things are or are not playing out in our current implementation of Magnuson. I do want to note at the outset that I think much of what we heard yesterday and much of the challenge that we face is underlain by a theme of tension and in many respects, natural tensions. It's the tension between perfect science and best available science. It's the tension between rebuilding goals and the promise of long-term rebuilding and current economic realities that many fishermen and local communities face all around the country. It's actually, and we're going to see this, I think, play out in some of the allocation discussions, particularly as it relates to cat share systems, a little bit of a tension between and where we strike a balance between efficiency and equity in relation to historic uses. We also see growing tensions between the prosecution of individual fisheries and the needs to recognize that those fisheries operate in are influenced by and influence broader ecosystems and broader socioeconomic systems. All of these tensions really come together in, I think, the here and now to present us some really important challenges, but also some great opportunities to build on the past success of Magnuson in a way that will really help us in social, economic, and environmental ways going forward meet even greater promise that's associated with the coastal and ocean resources that we all share. I don't think, by the way, that those tensions, the other comment that I wanted to make at the outset is that those tensions are necessarily unique to the ocean world or to implementation of Magnuson. But I would suggest that they're complicated, in fact, by a couple of things, one of which we talked about yesterday, and that is this. We all face these kind of choices in our daily lives and in our professional lives in all kinds of ways, but the challenges in the ocean are complicated by this common access issue, this potential tragedy of the commons that we heard reflected on yesterday. And I think it's challenged by another thing, and Dean Logan mentioned my resume, and so I have some expertise earlier in my career in counting trees. And one of the things that, one of the adages of the fishery scientists is that, you know, fish are as easy to count as trees except they're underwater and they swim around. So we do have this, what that suggests is this underlying problem associated with recognizing our, the shared reality that we have to deal with. So it's too easy oftentimes to divert from debates around honest policy choices into debates over what the current reality is, what the science is, what the economic impacts are. And I'll talk a little bit about that going forward. So what I really want to focus on here today in this slide has been a little bit, this is a bit dated by some of the adjustments that I've made to this presentation, are really, as I already alluded to, the opportunity for the gains associated with Magnus and to date and the continued promise associated with execution of Magnus and Act going forward. I really do want to focus on a few of the significant changes associated with the 2006 reauthorization. I want to talk about some of our particular implementation priorities within NOAA Fisheries. We heard a lot yesterday about the various responsibilities that are bestowed upon the agency, the fishery management councils and the fishermen and the fishing communities associated with this new Magnus and we can't satisfy all of those demands at once. In fact, we heard in some of the Q&A alluded to one of the demands that we're explicitly not meeting up, meeting our requirements on and there are certainly others. And I do want to close with a few comments about the opportunity associated with the new national ocean policy and particularly coastal and marine spatial planning focus of that national ocean policy. And most importantly, what I'm hoping to do, although I look around the room and I see there are no clocks here, what I'm hoping to do is restrict my commentary to about 30 minutes and then leave plenty of opportunity for Q&A because frankly I know that's the most interesting part of the session for you and it usually is for me as well. So we'll try to do that and so Susan, if you could help me in that regard. Okay. So I don't wear, you know, probably like a lot of people, I don't wear a watch anymore. I look at my cell phone so if I look at my cell phone it's not because I'm uninterested in what I have to say. So I do want to talk a little bit about the opportunity associated with Magnus and reauthorization. You know, I think we think a lot about the application of Magnus and in the here and now in the context of impacts to fishermen and fishing communities. We hear certainly a lot of that. Why can't we just leave things the way that they are? Well, of course, you know, the first part of that is that leaving things the way that they are is not necessarily a static or dependable circumstance. Many fisheries face challenges under their current management framework. But more importantly is that many fisheries around the country, not only from an ecosystem perspective, but even from a direct economic perspective are underperforming. And we know that we have incredible rebuilding opportunities that are out there based on not only long-term histories but even recent histories. And we know that increasing, that rebuilding all fish stocks will provide for us significant economic opportunity in the here and now, in these fishing communities. And this slide is just a quick synopsis of some of the current calculation associated with that potential opportunity. I would also note, by the way, that I think there were a series of handouts, one pagers, that were passed around the room, that sort of, some of them were passed around the room, there's some of them here, that capture some of this data in summary fashion. And you're welcome to use that in addition to whatever summary materials are going to be available, ultimately, on line. So we heard a lot yesterday about the evolution of Magnuson since its inception in 1976. I'm not going to dwell on that history again. Other than to note that the evolution I think was not just one of, you know, some agency or some congresses dastardly attempt to just make things more complicated over time. It really did reflect not only an evolution of the changing circumstances that the fisheries have found themselves in in relation to early implementation, but also a recognition of the increasing challenges that we face in managing these fisheries effectively within the context of what are very complicated ecosystems. And so as science improves, our need to manage more effectively within the context of that increased understanding, obviously, increases. And so while the early days of fisheries were really about securing a domestic fishery, they were also about managing that domestic fishery in a very kind of single species fashion, if you will. And one of the important evolutions over time that we have seen unfold is first an understanding of the interactions among species. This continues to challenge us significantly in mixed stock species or even in management efforts where we seek to achieve the maximum sustainable yield for species that in some cases eat each other. But we have also seen increasing recognition of the interactions not only of species with each other but with their habitats. And we have seen in some places the carrying capacity of habitats decline. Those are things that we have to take in real consideration as we make management decisions. We have also, by the way, seen opportunities for fisheries to interact with and impact on their habitats. So this relationship between fisheries and their habitats is something that has increasingly been incorporated into management planning efforts going forward. And I would submit that, by the way, it's not going to end there. We heard some mention yesterday of climate-related impacts. And so even as we move to an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, recognizing in the here and now the relationship amongst species and between species and their habitats, we also are beginning to recognize that those habitats in time are not static circumstances and in fact issues like global warming, issues like sea level rise have potential to, in many ways, affect the fishery resources that we manage and therefore require consideration of the potential of those changes as we undertake management planning going into the future. And I'll just place that as sort of a bookmark for you to think about going into the future. Let me just highlight a couple of things at the outset related to the 2006 reauthorization, 2006, with deference to Mike Conditon. Are you still here, Mike? And the legislative process. Actually, I always reference the 2006 reauthorization, too, because I did have the opportunity in a stint with the Association of Fish and Wildlife agencies to work on the 2006 reauthorization. And it was, by the way, having worked on that and provided some language that ultimately was incorporated into one aspect of the bill, something that we thought was actually dead. We all went to sleep, and maybe the last night of that waning Congress in 2006 thinking that all of our work had gone for naught and woke up to find that, in fact, the act had passed and it set us on the course that I think we're on today in, again, in many ways, I think, affording us great opportunity to focus on some things that are important going forward. So it mandates the use of annual catch limits and accountability measures to end overfishing. Specifically, put into place the requirement that we meet deadlines to put those measures into place, and to meet specific deadlines relating to rebuilding stocks. And if you go back to the promise of the 1996 reauthorization, you saw that desire to move in that direction, and I think what you saw reflected in 2006 was, frankly, a dissatisfaction that deadlines had slipped and the promise of the 96 reauthorization associated with ending overfishing and rebuilding stocks had not been met and perhaps on the part of at least some leaders in Congress, some frustration with that fact. It also provides, very specifically for widespread use of what can be term market-based management through limited access privileges manifesting now under the terminology of catch shares.  I'm going into a little more detail on the catch share issue here momentarily. And it calls for increased international cooperation. You'll see in a slide that I'll show you in a few minutes that there is, there remain continued problems associated with ending overfishing and rebuilding stocks in stocks that we share internationally. And there was a particular focus in this reauthorization in identifying the need for stronger international presence and international negotiating postures as it related to a number of those stocks. And it also strengthens the role of science in management. I'll say more about that here in a moment, particularly as it relates to councils. So, you know, the councils do do a great job. As we heard yesterday, the councils might not be perfect. The entire management system is not perfect, but we heard referenced twice yesterday to the Churchill quote regarding democracy. And I think it somewhat applies here because we do feel like the councils present an incredibly robust opportunity for public input, engagement with not only the fishing community, but lots of other interests that have perspectives related to the marine and coastal environment. And the councils do provide for us a very strong evaluation of options and a very strong application of the public input and public desires into that management process. The councils have been historically challenged, particularly when separating between allocation issues and conservation issues, and I think one of the points that you see reflected in that 2006 reauthorization, which essentially at some level limited the council's ability to move outside of the advice of its scientific and statistical committees to focus really on let's first set the conservation threshold that we have to meet to end over fishing, to rebuild stocks, to manage on a sustainable basis that we all seek to manage on. And then within that framework, let's make the rest of our management and allocation decisions without going back and compromising on some of those conservation principles. So one of the things that the 2006 act did was very clearly draw that line between when you're making conservation decisions and taking conservation action and when within the context of a sustainability framework you can make appropriate compromises related to allocation and other management actions. So I'm not going to focus on the national standard at all. I'll just again say that one of the things that the 2006 reauthorization did was establish this requirement for creation of annual catch limits and accountability measures by 2010 for fisheries undergoing over fishing in 2011 for all of our major stocks. So I don't know if you can read the fine print there, but I have two maps. One is stocks subject to over fishing and these are, you know, out of our major stocks and I think you find, even if you can't read the fine print there, a rather interesting difference between West Coast and East and Gulf Coast and I will allow you to draw your own conclusions about that but I would just offer a couple of comments. One is obviously many of these fisheries on the East Coast and the Gulf are complex, both in much more complex in the number and type of participants but also in the number of species that are involved. But in some cases also when you get out of the West Coast there is particularly in Alaska a longer history of dealing with some of these important conservation goals that are shared between the fishermen and the agency and we could spend hours teasing apart what that means but this is at least as it relates to our responsibility with the councils to address over fishing a current snapshot of the world, at least the US. So for rebuilding over fish stocks, so it's really important and I know for a good part of the audience it's unnecessary for me to say this but let me do it anyway for at least parts of the audience to distinguish between over fished and over fishing. So over fished represents some abundance level that you think is appropriate in relation to the historical abundance levels of that particular stock and over fishing really relates specifically to the rate of removal of that stock and so if you can have a stock that is over fished in that its abundance is very low that may or may not be subject to any fishing at all. Alternatively you can have a stock whose abundance is high but which is being exploited at a rate that threatens to undermine that abundance over time so you can have a relatively healthy stock that is in the short term subject to over fishing before vulnerable to decline. Alternatively you can have an over fished stock, one at low abundance whereby you've significantly curtailed fishing and it might even be on a rebuilding trajectory just has not gotten there yet but we do have specific requirements with respect to rebuilding over fish stocks that are articulated on this slide. And so here's a picture of the over fished stocks and I'm not going to dwell on this other than to note that the 40 from the previous slide and the 47 from this slide don't necessarily perfectly overlap and so there are some that fall into one or both categories depending upon the circumstances that I just described. So we also have this scientific challenge which is our understanding of the status of stocks. We measure progress in rebuilding based on a fish stock sustainability index. It's very simple. It reflects the measure of increasing understanding of the primary stocks and their status as it relates to over fished and over fishing and so that you do see 21 stocks have been rebuilt since 2000. You do see significant not only increases in the rebuilding process but also reflected here is an increased understanding of the status of many stocks and when you go around the country there are a lot of stocks for which we frankly lack sufficient data and by the way New England is probably the place where we suffer that problem the least. You go down into the South Atlantic, the Gulf Coast one of the big problems is that we have major stocks that we have historically not had really good understanding of. So let me shift gears into catch shares. So I'm going a little over I guess Susan but I'm getting close. Let me just I'll just try to keep it moving along. So we're going to talk about allocation issues you know speaking generally a catch share that's a term used to describe a fishery management program where shares of quotas are assigned more explicitly to individuals, to communities, to associations of some sort and the recipient of the catch share is directly accountable for on an annual basis fishing in a manner that acts within the constraints of that individual share. Oftentimes accompanying that assignment of a catch share on the part of the regulatory agency is more flexibility to fish outside of traditional management boundaries providing that the fisherman or the catch share owning entity remains within that overall quota. So there's a trade-off here which is we'll give you a little more flexibility from a management end you take a little more responsibility for meeting your share. These shares also generally are assigned by way of a privilege over a period of time. So if you own a if if you control a percentage of a share of a stock in year one and that stock increases in size going into year two three four or five your actual quota then would rise as that total allowable catch would rise. So that so in addition to having this here and now flexibility and this here and now opportunity to time bringing fish to the market on occasion when it is most valuable to you. You also have invested now a greater opportunity to see the value of your share grow over time as conservation measures take effect and you also thereby very directly eliminate in many respects this traditional challenge associated with the Tragedy of Commons where even if I have a particular conservation ethic that I want to employ in my fishing behavior I don't necessarily operate with a sense of confidence that everybody else in the fishery is acting in the same way. Therefore my conservation ethic my conservation motivation is in fact undermined in some fashion by my uncertainty with respect to what other members of the fishery are doing in any given in any given fishing season. So I want to just talk I do want to note that yesterday as I was sitting here we also released our national catch share policy. Our national catch share policy does not mandate the application of catch share systems in fisheries nor does it set any numeric quotas that the agency aspires to meet. It does say that we encourage councils to evaluate the opportunity associated with catch share systems when they make important management decisions and it does say that we will work with them both on a technical perspective and from the perspective of providing resources to help them implement catch share programs should they choose to so implement them. I'm going to show you this graph which can you guys see those numbers. Okay I can't unless I put my glasses on but this this is specific to the Northeast ground fish catch as it relates to sector implementation in 2010. And it tells a rather interesting story because it compares on the left for us for a series of stocks in the ground fish fishery on the left a set of columns that relate to sector based performance and on the right the common pool. So as you heard a little bit yesterday fishermen could elect into sectors that was generally based at least to some degree their ability to do so on their catch history but it was a free opportunity to associate and aggregate according to their catch histories and business interests and everybody that didn't elect to go into sectors remained in a common pool. So you could you could at least posit the argument that some of the opportunity to employ the creativity and ingenuity of fishermen under the sector program and under the latitude afforded participants in the sectors should show up in these catch patterns and that the common pool catch patterns might be more reflective of historical challenges associated with management of this multi species fishery. So what you see here in those stocks is some stocks in the ground fish fishery are considered to be limiting stocks that is when we catch the annual quota of the limiting stock it has the effect of shutting down the fishery even for stocks that are healthier and for which we have not secured the total allowable catch for the year. So there's a chronic underperformance associated with this ground fish fishery in relation to the total allowable catch that is driven by this limiting stock problem. And the thing I really want to focus on here is the fact that some of the highlighted stocks represent some of the limiting stocks that are looked upon across the region and while limiting stocks change from place to place in New England these are fairly representative and so what you see is that for example Gulf of Maine cod the sector operations have caught 38% of the total allowable catch through this time period compared to 88% of the same species for the common pool and you see as you go down the line a number of species for which the common pool has caught a significantly higher percentage thereby exposing them to either fishery shutdown or in the case of the common pool under the current management plan much more restrictive fishing regulations and while the sectors are at least in aggregate employing some measure of ingenuity, creativity to work around the limiting stocks and provide at least the opportunity to secure a higher percentage of the healthier stocks. Now let me place an important caveat here. This is aggregate data. This does not represent the experience of every individual fisherman or the likely success of every individual sector and so we understand that this aggregate data only tells a part of the story. We understand that there are incredible and very important economic challenges associated with early implementation of the sector program that continue to require analysis, that continue to require action on the part of the council, on the part of the agency and on the part of a number of the other management partners to make sure that we affect a smooth and appropriate transition as we move toward, as we move into this sector program but there is as evidenced by this graph something there to take advantage of something there to build on to on an annual basis going forward get closer to realizing the full potential of this fishery even as we rebuild some of these weaker stocks. So I'm not going to focus on this just because of time. I want to talk about science just very quickly. We talked about, I talked at the outset about the challenges associated with effectively describing what's going on out there. It continues to be a major point of contention in many fisheries. In some cases we know that we always operate based upon best available science. We know that in many places we would always like to have better, more timely, more accurate and more precise science but we operate within the world that we operate in. At the same time it is really important that we work very closely with particularly the fishing community to at least do whatever we can to create closer alignment between our assessment of the current reality and the fisherman's assessment of the current reality. And oftentimes you'll hear argument that we're way off base and sometimes occasionally that's true and sometimes that's not true. What fishermen do to in effect measure stocks is go to the places where there are the most fish, where they historically know they're of the most fish and catch them. Surveys don't operate that way and there's a natural distinction there that we need to recognize going forward but we do also recognize the need to continue to invest and I thought I had a slide that I'm not ready for yet but continue to invest in better science and continue to invest in cooperative science that focused on engaging fishermen more directly in the survey process. There's another part of cooperative research by the way which has been very effective over the years and that is prosecuted by fishermen for the purposes of testing more selective gear, testing gear that is more habitat friendly and that is another whole realm of cooperative science that we have funded in the past and continue to place great emphasis on going forward. All right, I'm really close. So I just wanted to mention Marine Recreational Information Program. One of the other big challenges, shortcomings associated with historical fisheries management was our ability to effectively characterize the catch and effort within recreational fisheries. There are interestingly not a whole lot of recreational constituents represented in this room but in some parts of the country it's a dominant factor in our management challenge in the South Atlantic, in the Gulf, many other places that have underway significant efforts to focus on improving our ability to measure recreational catch and effort. So unlike commercial data where we get real actual landings data, recreational effort and catch is collected through survey-based methodology that provides estimates that often are challenged by participants. So I mentioned cooperative research already. The last thing I just wanted to say a word or two about, and you'll have the pleasure, by the way, of seeing me again on the second panel today and I'll be able to talk a little bit more about ocean policy and coastal and marine spatial planning on that panel. But I did want to note as kind of a conclusion here that as we heard yesterday there are a lot of new challenges out there. They're geographic, they're functional in the different kinds of uses in coastal and ocean areas that either have to coexist with or have the potential to in some fashion affect fisheries. And ocean policy and coastal and marine spatial planning, we believe, represents a very significant opportunity, a significant place where many of those diverse interests can come together and much more effectively plan, share information and make long-term management decisions with respect to coastal and ocean areas and resources. And so I'll say more about this later, but it does present, we think, great promise to address, particularly a number of the things that came up in conversation yesterday with respect to conflicts that exist out there on the ocean. So I'm going to stop there. I do very much appreciate the opportunity to share a few of these thoughts with you. And so I did save at least 15 minutes for Q&A. Thank you. Dennis. It's good to be the name Defendant for actions. We have been in the Northeast, I think, contributed tremendously to the wealth of fisheries case law that helped your agency develop and refine its plans. But just last week, a very significant lawsuit was filed on the West Coast by the Greater Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen. I get three or four small fisheries groups filed suit against you and the agency saying that the catch-share program that has been proposed there has a violence national standard number eight, ignores the needs of small fishermen in favor of consolidation of larger factory trawlers. I know you can't comment directly on laws that have just been filed, but can you talk about that tension between national standard number eight and some of these consolidation programs that are going around the country? Yeah, so not commenting specifically on that case, but I alluded to this in my earlier commentary, and that is that there's a certain independent of catch-share systems, independent of ITQ systems. We have a number of fisheries that are overcapitalized. We have a number of fisheries that are targeting stocks that have been in decline or that are, because of rebuilding requirements, suffering substantial constraints in comparison to past quotas. We also have fisheries that are facing significant by-catch issues, whether it relates to other fish stocks that are in rebuilding plans or protected resources like marine mammals and sea turtles. And so there is a requirement, again, independent of catch-share systems for the councils working with the fishermen to find that right spot. And that right spot, as it relates to the allocation of what's available, probably in many cases won't necessarily reflect historical fishing opportunity that was associated with perhaps less attention to by-catch issues or higher levels of abundance in stocks. Which is one of the reasons that we say that, one of the reasons that councils are an important part of the process is also when you talk about catch-share systems, one of the reasons that we say very explicitly that catch-share systems have got to be designed with local needs, sort of a local vision as to what that future fishery might look like in place. And it needs to take account for geographic diversity, for diversity in gear types, big boats, small boats, et cetera. And that's a conversation that really has to happen in those places to be sort of reflective of local community visions for the future of their fisheries. And there are trade-offs between sort of maximum efficiency and maximum capture and some of these kind of social goals. And finding that trade-off is from place to place, finding that right place is a very different thing from place to place. And frankly, it's a very different thing from fisherman to fisherman. That's part of what's the struggle that's underway. Again, independent of catch-share systems all over the country as we look to future fisheries that's happening in the Pacific Northwest with the Troll IQ, it's happening in New England with sectors. And it's a dialogue that we just have to continue to have so that we find a way forward that, again, not only looks for the right economic mix but also protects the social goals that we seek to protect locally. I will say this about the Troll IQ out there, and that is that they do have a specific component of the plan which includes a set-aside, a quota set-aside to address some of the small community's remote community concerns that are out there. And that part of that plan is still very much under development. I think as we saw sectors get implemented here in New England, there was also at the same time an awareness that the initial plan was not to be able to end all and there will be adjustments and programs going forward to address some of those concerns. Yeah, Peter. Eric Peter Shelley from CLF. I couldn't help noticing from your maps of the country overfishing stocks that the only group that's competing with the New England Council for the most overfishing stocks that you managed, the higher migratory stocks. And I wondered if you could talk about that a little bit. These are some of the most iconic fish in the ocean and the top of the food chain. And can you tease that apart a little bit about why are you having to try to make calls? Are there scientific differences between countries? Are there political differences between the countries that are engaged in these higher migratory fisheries? Is it management within NIMS that needs to be strengthened? What are the components of reducing your presence on that map? So I guess I should paraphrase the question for the purposes of taping and that is what it means that there are significant highly migratory species challenges still evident in our management framework. So I think the answer, Peter, is all of the above. Obviously there are continued debates over science. There is a continued need for improved science in many of these stocks, but there are also tremendous challenges in the international world in taking domestic understandings and domestic positions into international arenas and affecting some kind of a positive outcome. I think it's probably, you may take issue with this, but fair to say that in general, as it relates not only to the management of these stocks but to the management of these fisheries within the context of some of the other things that we hold dear like sea turtles and marine mammals, that the U.S. is pretty progressive in its thinking and application of fishery management regulations to that effect much more so in some cases than some of the other countries that we encounter. So that's a constant challenge. There are big quota fights, as you well know, that in many cases undermine any kind of a conservation based threshold that we might establish. The point that I made about Magnuson now sort of drawing that hard line between conservation and addressing allocation fights is in many of those international venues not as clear a line or much more easily crossed on a regular basis. I will also mention that one of the other things that we have alluded to this is focus on improved engagement in the international arena and one of the things that the Magnuson 2006 reauthorization established was a position within NOAA expressly for the purposes of doing a better job in the international arena. And we're very fortunate not that long ago to have brought on Russell Smith as our new deputy under secretary for international fisheries issues. Russell's primary job is number one comes to us from the U.S. trade representative. So we think he's got the right, you know, he's got the right resume to take on this task is to do a better job of advancing U.S. perspective U.S. positions in these various international arenas, not only individual but in a more coordinated fashion so that when we're dealing with tuna issues in the western Pacific we might also be thinking about how we're dealing with tuna issues in the Atlantic and, you know, et cetera, et cetera. So a lot of work to be done but we at least have a renewed emphasis on it. I think we're getting a little bit of traction in a few places and hopefully I will continue. Is he had a strategy or advocacy in the states to get the registry implemented? We have to struggle to make it faster than expected. Okay, so Dan is asking specifically about the national angler registry. One of the things that I sort of glossed over is that part of the Marine Recreational Information Program improvement that was prescribed in the Magnuson Act was in the 2006 reauthorization was a national, creation of a national angler registry which would provide for us a better database from which to launch efforts to survey recreational fishermen. And so one of the things that the statute set up was an opportunity for states to essentially put into place a comparable acceptable program that would generate that data in lieu of a national angler registry. At this point we've got two states that have not put in place accepted state level registry processes. One is Hawaii, the other is New Jersey. So you allude Dan to some issues in Maine, but there is a program in place. Yeah, okay. So the states that either had some sort of a recreational license or didn't have one would have expanded that recreational license both in scope, number of participants, as well as in the type of information that was requested to essentially enable this effective survey process. And so we work very closely with states all around the country, not only in helping to support factually what the differences were between the national registry and what the state registry opportunities might offer going forward. And I think that had a lot to do with a number of the states that did effectively move forward. The states that haven't gone forward that I mentioned will continue to participate through a national internet-based registration process that we administer. And that really will become, that's become sort of only just one of the foundational pieces to doing a better job of better assessing recreational catch and effort. So we'll have this more discrete survey base, but we have to couple that with improved dockside surveys as well as a number of other elements that relate to for higher sector and the like to really generate a better overall picture of and more precise picture of recreational catch and effort going forward. So we'll see actually just going into 2011 the first implementation of angler registry-based surveys that will go at least initially side by side with the traditional survey so that we'll be able to we'll be able to assess the differences. So I'm not sure, Dan, if that answers your question but that's kind of the state of the world on that issue. Yes. Jay, going for the major compared to other speakers, I wanted to ask two questions. One, does anyone ever talk to Ohioans anymore? They used to talk a lot. And two, replacing old gear, better gear to reduce by catch and destruction of habitat. Is there more that you at NOAA or Wheaton can do to foster that through in combination with catch shares or providing sentencing research? Is that part of the plan to preserve? Okay, so the question is sort of in the context of overcapitalization are we still talking about buyouts and number one, and secondly, what are the opportunities associated, the associated opportunities to support newer gear, gear research that is more selective, more habitat friendly, the like? Well, let me say this. First of all, I think that one of the real promising aspects of catch shares is that they is that once you achieve some rationalization initially it eliminates sort of the motivation which originates from this tragedy of the commons to essentially pursue a fisheries arms race, right? And so once you rationalize, once you move into a catch share program, now a fisherman is only going to deploy as much gear the gear that he or she needs to secure the quota that has been assigned to them and they're not going to feel like they're in constant competition. Again, it's sort of an arms race mentality with other fishermen who are fishing just to maximize capture of a shared quota. You know, buyouts can be a part of the transition process, right? So as I alluded to in answering Dennis's question the challenge is in that transition. Not only is the challenge associated with sort of visioning where you want to be but when you decide where you want to be and you set in course the actions to move in that direction how do you deal with the people that are left out of that process? Buyouts can be an important part of that process. Our general posture with respect to buyouts is that we look very heavily to the councils to that local visioning, that local design process to inform the need for some kind of a buyout where there is a buyout where there is a buyout option that's being explored we're certainly happy and in many cases have provided whatever technical support we can to help affect an appropriate an appropriate implementation appropriate design and implementation. Obviously these things are historically much hampered by money or lack thereof I don't think that's going to change appreciably going forward so it's a real issue that we'll continue to face in some of these transitional phases of some of these fisheries. As it relates to gear, absolutely I mentioned our strong interest in continuing to support cooperative research that is specifically focused on design and testing and utilization of gear that is more selective as it relates to all kinds of bycatch protected resources, other fish, etc. As well as gear that is more habitat friendly and I think both of those things are going to be more important going forward even than they have been in the past. Up in the back here? Hi, I have hundreds of millions of dollars over the years exploring, spotting, habitat access and then some people will say that the fisheries for many of those species whether it's sand or river areas get clobbered out in the marine environment for the most reason and I guess I'm just curious does an NGO that's a little bit on the restoration side if there's any renewed interest in trying to figure out ways and not be working at potentially cost purposes for the species? Yeah, thanks Kevin, right? So Kevin asked about particularly as it relates to diadromous species, species that migrate insure upriver systems and then spend parts of their life offshore whether we're trying to do a better job to sort of sync up the offshore management to match some of the commitment of insure resources to improve access to spawning rivers and rebuild populations and the like and the answer is absolutely I mean we see that in a number of different stocks it's a constant issue out in California as we deal with the salmon life cycle and the need to in some cases close ocean fisheries to allow populations to rebuild I think it's also these are by the way sort of two of my favorite things to talk about one being habitat particularly as it relates to insure and upland habitat which are so important to so many of these diadromous species and then again this kind of more comprehensive linkage of the need to not only to understand the life cycles the movements and characterize the choke points if you will in that process but then to manage accordingly it's a constant issue for us Kevin I alluded to west coast salmon issues we have big salmon bycatch issues that we're trying to manage with some of the Alaska fisheries we have east coast bycatch issues you mentioned river herring shad and the like that have long been a focal point of management concern as we try to sync up the right protections and it's a huge challenge from a scientific perspective because it's a process that lends itself to sort of offshore pointing insure and insure pointing offshore and it's not me it's that other guy and so it presents what I think is an incredible first and foremost sort of scientific challenge to be able to effectively characterize the current reality to thereby minimize that kind of don't mess with us because until you fix that and vice versa so it's a real issue it's something we pay a lot of attention to and it's also something we work very closely with the states on because of the insure you know component to management of a lot of these fisheries so that's probably not maybe as precise an answer as you were looking for but I'll see I'm sure that this goes with the problem okay I look forward to it


in today's video we are talking ripple guys as you guys can see today there's been a huge sell-off we're down currently about 15% just on the day with the reason why ripple has been falling yesterday we received some news from ripple CEO warning that the sec may sue the company over xrp sales and then today we got the confirmation that sec is charging ripple and two executives with conducting a 1.3 billion dollar unregisters securities offering so we're going to be talking about this guys and we're going to be talking about the future of ripple on what we think might happen and where the prices can go from here guys make sure that you like and subscribe guys hit that notification bell and drop a comment let us know if you've been in this bull run and if you guys are interested in using the exchange that we use we use buy bit and in the description we have a link where you guys can sign up through that and you'll be able to get some rewards on your initial deposit up to around a hundred dollars or more so without further ado let's jump right in guys what is going on guys and welcome back to another bitcoin daily video if you need to the channel my name is jay let's jump right in guys so today you see this big red candle guys we're down about 60 almost 16 percent on on uh i was gonna say there on xrp guys uh as you can see here as far as what the patterns been doing um after we're breaking down in this uh pattern right here in this channel we broke out of it we consolidated up top for a bit before breaking down due to this news now as you can see here we did get a little a small little bounce here at the bottom of this channel as you guys can see here that it was following before and then we also have this Fibonacci retracement right there right so we're gonna be taking a look at this guys we're gonna see if there's any possible trades to be made here um but first let's jump into the news on what exactly caused this huge huge drop right so um first things first i believe it was yesterday evening maybe yesterday afternoon yesterday evening something like that ripples ceo warned that the sec may sue company over at xrp sales so he was saying that the us security and an exchange commission intends to sue ripple over the sale of xrp um he said that on monday and according to fortune the lawsuit will be filled in the near future though no specific date has been provided yet so as you guys can see here um the it's the council the council the lawyers of xrp said this complaint is wrong as a matter of law other major branches of the US government including the justice department and the treasury department's fin sen has determined that xrp is a currency transactions in xrp thus fall outside of the scope of the federal security laws this is not the first time that sec has tried to go beyond the statutory authority the courts have corrected it before and will do so again so um that's basically what the what the lawyer said if you didn't know ripple has already been sued um by investors uh in a class action suit lawsuit uh on claims that the company said xrp's price would rise so that's that suit uh began in 2018 and continues its course through the courts that is insane guys since 2018 uh xrp bag holders that bought that bought at the top i'm sure are very upset that the price dropped down so they're suing xrp guys don't be a bag holder like that you have to try to sue the company because you decided to buy at the top that's crazy uh almost start suing any company if i buy at the top and the price falls down i am suing from now on the company has previously paid $700,000 in fines and another uh 450,000 guys those are pennies to these guys so that doesn't even matter the CEO of xrp or billionaires guys so those are pennies all right so let's go to the next so so that was yesterday now today boom we have from the us securities and exchange commission themselves they themselves put out a press release um stating the sec charges ripple and two executives with conducting $1.3 billion un unregistered securities offering so it continues the securities and exchange commission announced today that it has filed an action against ripple labs ink and two of his its executives who are also significant security holders a legend that they raised over $1.3 billion through an unregistered ongoing digital asset securities offering so the complaint is against christian larson and bradley garlinghouse right um the complaint alleges that ripple raised funds beginning in 2013 through the sale of digital assets known as xrp in an unregistered securities offering to investors in the us and worldwide ripple also allegedly distributed billions of xrp in exchange for non-cash considerations such as labor and marketing market making services according to the complaint in addition to structuring and promoting the xrp sales used to finance the company's business larson and garlinghouse also affected personal unregistered sales of xrp totaling approximately $600 million the complaint alleges that the defendant failed to register their offers and sales of xrp or satisfy any exemption from registration in violation to registration provisions of the federal security laws issuers seeking the benefits of a public offering including access to retail investors broad distribution and a secondary trading market must comply with the federal security laws that require registration of offerings unless an exemption from registration applies so that's basically one of the one of the directors of the secs secs enforcement divisions stated um he also said we alleged that ripple larson and garlinghouse failed to register their ongoing offer and sell of billions of xrp to retail investors which deprived potential purchasers of adequate disclosures about xrp and ripple's business and other important longstanding protections that are fundamental to our robust public market system the registration requirements are designed to ensure that potential investors including importantly retail investors receive important information about an issuers business operations and financial conditions um here we alleged that ripple and its executives failed over a period of years to satisfy these core investor protection provisions and as a result investors lacked information to which they were entitled the secs complaint filed today in the federal district court in manhattan charges defendants with violating the registration provisions of the security act of 1933 and then they're just seeking a bunch of penalties guys this is this is pretty crazy this is pretty crazy i'm gonna gonna say it myself so now this is the issue here an sec victory and ripple case would render xrp untradable they're stating that many cryptocurrency exchanges would be forced to delist it so liquidity would dry up in the event that sec won the case exchanges that continue listing xrp run the risk of being asked to register as securities exchanges by the sec exchanges that continue listing xrp would run the risk of being asked to register as securities exchanges by the sec should the commission win its lawsuit otherwise these these exchanges might face penalties for allowing retail consumers to trade in unregistered security so basically if the sec were to win the lawsuit um any exchange that's listing xrp would be at risk right of being sued or being pursued by the sec as well so they would be forced to delist xrp which would of course crash xrp you could already see in this report there's already one small exchange that nobody has ever heard of that delisted it i mean nobody really cares about them um so you can see here that odds that xrp gets delisted on the sec developments are low so although the short term is a little scary since there's a lot of uncertainty there's a lot of fear people don't know what exactly is going on there are definitely scenarios where this works out in favor of xrp as well there are various ways the sec could grant special operating conditions or accept a payment of a settlement from ripple that could dampen the blow another idea is that this call could eventually allow ripple to list on traditional stock exchanges and potentially open it up to a far wider market which in turn would mean that there could be extremely positive price action in the long term so the former commodity futures trading commission chairman christopher john carlos he had said that his view on xrp should that it should be considered a currency or medium of exchange not a security he cited the howie test a supreme court case that had been used as a chief standard for assessing whether or not something is a security um in short the howie states that something is a security if one if it one is an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits derived from the effort of others according to john carlos um xrp investors were not promised returns or a share of ripple's profits but the sec sees it differently so there's a lot of information here guys basically the sec is complaining that um that xrp has created an an information vacuum is what they're calling it where basically they're they're not you know um giving the public everything that's going on then they also mentioned here moneygram and that they were compensating uh moneygram to use xrp in its business to uh increase the volume so you guys could actually go here and see the full document here the full complaint all the information here i'm not gonna go through all of this on this video because in this video is gonna be super long um but it's definitely here for anyone who is interested in actually reading all of this um have a blast i'm not gonna do it all right so let's go ahead and take a look at ripple itself um let's see where it is from a technical standpoint and see what what we can you know see what we see let's see what we see so as you guys can see we're at 44 cents right now down about 14 and a half percent um now overall just because of the fear and uncertainty i would not recommend uh trying to actively trade this at this point in time just because we don't know what's gonna happen we don't know which way it's gonna go we don't know we just don't know what's what's gonna happen so purposely for right now i'm not going to be trading um xrp but you know as always you guys do your own research and do whatever it is you want to do um but as you can see here we had this uh descending channel which we broke out of um and then got rejected and basically we were consolidating there um just under this Fibonacci level before getting this news yesterday um and uh just dropping down right so you do see that we had that support right there that we bounced off of and now we're seeing that this Fibonacci level is holding that's a 61.8 um so if that Fibonacci level holds there we might be seeing that's what we might be seeing right at this point basically a bounce here where it might try to shoot back up and maybe you know maybe up to this level which is this this other Fibonacci level which is also the 50 cent level right so 50 cents a big whole number um and then maybe just continue lower after that so that's something that's a possibility that could happen um so that's why I'm just kind of going to stay out of it for right now um it's just a little too risky for my liking maybe if we get back above this Fibonacci level then I'll consider getting into trades or if we hear more about the case you know any updates any anything positive any positive news uh then definitely um other than that I'm not looking to trade this long term at this moment even though we are getting a bounce but like I said we could very well see a bounce here uh that pretty much up here that'll trap investors and then just kind of fall down here right um so for now I'm staying out of the XRP market as far as day trades I do hold long term positions in it um and um I haven't decided what I'm gonna do with it yet so I need a little bit of time to try to figure out what I'm doing with long term positions but uh for short term I'm not buying any more XRP and I'm not going to be actively trading XRP at the moment that's pretty much it for today guys I just wanted to go ahead and cover that because I know a lot of you had a bunch of questions about XRP and this lawsuit with the SEC I just wanted to give you guys my insight and go over this news together with you guys um so we could just review it together and uh and then look at the charts and see you know what what I'm seeing currently um but that's pretty much it guys I appreciate you guys for watching this video as always um make sure to subscribe and hit that notification bell hit that uh like button and drop a comment let me know what you guys think that what's gonna happen with XRP because I have no idea um I'd love to hear your thoughts on what you think about this and if you um think that this is something that XRP is gonna get through or if you think this is something that the SEC will will win um that's pretty much it guys I appreciate you guys for being here and watching this video I will be back with you guys tomorrow with another video as always peace and love


If you're watching a video in order, this is the other video. Sorry. Anyway, so if you recall from the stimulus preference assessment, we have three preferences that you chose. You chose the candle, the shoe, and the pen. Now we're going to see which one of these can hold the most behavior. In other words, a reinforcer assessment. Which one of these actually serves as a reinforcer? So we're going to ask you to engage in particular responses and we'll deliver these things contingently to see which one actually reinforces your behavior. It's a reinforcer assessment. It's obviously way more complex than that. When you actually go to try and do it, it's really easy to say, but kind of hard to do. So when you're running your pseudo-experiment out there in the real world, just remember you're trying to figure out which reinforcer is most effective. That's really what you're trying to do. That's it. And you can use those later on to strengthen and I guess, yeah, strengthen other behaviors. So just info for you to use in your practice. That's it.


Well, I hope you've all been well fed. We usually say it about this time that I just called and asked if I could bring a few friends home for lunch. And we didn't know it was going to be 103 degrees in the room, but aside from that, it worked out very well. There are a couple of people in this room that you won't have an opportunity to meet throughout the rest of the day, all the rest of our participants that you will visit with either have this morning or will this afternoon, but I'm sure that you would like to offer your greetings to some very important people. And the first, of course, is one of the neatest ladies in the world, Mrs. Barbara Bush. And of course, the neatest lady in this house who makes all this possible because this is her domain. And when you say luncheon in the White House, there is only one person who is responsible for that. And that is the first lady, Nancy Reagan. And now without further ado, your host for lunch this afternoon, who I'm sure has some interesting things to tell you, the President of the United States. Thank you all. Thank you all very much. Welcome to the White House. It's always good to see some old friends, but to have a chance also to make some new ones. And it's always a pleasure to be joined by two of the most important women in my life, Nancy and Maureen. We don't often have lunch together. But it may be September, but here in Washington, it's still hot and muggy as you have discovered. They don't know whether we're going to break the record. The record is seven straight days of this kind of a heat wave. And I think we're up to five now, or maybe I haven't counted them all. But I remember as a boy, a preacher in our church one Sunday and the dog days of summer told us that because of the heat, he was going to preach the shortest sermon that we had ever heard. And he said just seven words. If you think it's hot now, wait. So I'm going to follow his example. I'll run a little bit over seven words, but I'll try to keep it short. I'm sure you've heard of our plan to completely overhaul the federal tax structure. This is the most burning issue facing the American people, I think, in this decade. I'm going to be out in the stump all fall, bringing our case for tax fairness and economic growth to the American people and rallying their support. I'll be in many of your states, possibly many of your communities. And I'll be looking for your help because it's at the grassroots level that our tax proposal will find the energy, determination, and willpower needed to topple the status quo. Now I used that term because every place I've been going, like yesterday to the students of North Carolina State University, I identify, I explain status quo, that that's a Latin term for the mess we're in. And the present system is a mess. As state legislators, I'm not going to tell you about the pleadings of lobbyists. You're very familiar with that. The siren songs of special interests are heard in every legislative hall. But this time, we can work for the special interest of all the American people to create a fair and equitable tax system, one which will be a double boon to the economy because it will both close wasteful loopholes and cut tax rates. It's time for Americans to take their money out of tax shelters and invest that money in America's future. Every day we live with the present tax code, we're slowing economic growth, sacrificing jobs that could have been created and unfairly burdening families and perpetuating an unjust system that only breeds cynicism and resentment in the American people. I was out on the road twice this week. I was in Missouri on Labor Day and yesterday at North Carolina State, as I told you, State University. And talking to those college students brought home the urgency of this issue. The room was just electrified with their hope and energy and enthusiasm. I just sat at the table and will repeat. The 21st century is going to be in good hands. How unfair it would be to chain them to the failed policies of the past. One of our proudest accomplishments, as Republicans, is the way we've been able to draw more and more young people into our ranks. I've repeatedly said that I can remember back a time talking to Republican fundraisers and so forth when I've come home and say the only young people present looked like they couldn't join anything else. But not anymore. We've swept aside the pessimism and the resignation that gripped the elected leadership of this country not too long ago. And we've opened up the doors to the future. Like the American people, we Republicans believe that America is still young, still vital, and still strong. And what we've accomplished goes beyond just words. We've backed our words, I think, with decisive and dramatic action. Our 25% across the board tax reduction gave new life and substance to the American spirit of optimism. And entrepreneurial renaissance is spreading across our land. A powerful economic expansion is lifting America out of the devastation of a decade of high tax policies and enabling us to build on a solid base of non-inflationary growth. Here's a piece of good news you may not have heard about, but then knowing some of the people in our team that have been talking to you so far today, maybe they mentioned it, the Democratically Controlled House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families rated all the different tax plans that are floating around and found that ours was by far the most pro-family of all of them. By raising the standard deduction to $4,000 for a married couple filing jointly and nearly doubling the personal exemption to $2,000, we'll make it so that a family of four doesn't pay one penny in federal income tax on the first $12,000 of earnings. We're also giving non-wage-earning spouses equal access to the IRAs, those non-taxable savings accounts. And this coupled with the pension reform that was passed in the last Congress will go a long way toward alleviating poverty by allowing women the means to take care for themselves in their retirement years. Another report may be of special interest to you is state legislators. Our proposal to eliminate the state and local tax deduction beginning a lot of flak from some quarters. I'm talking about it here at this table. Well, it turns out that the New York state government has a study by its controller that found that taxpayers in New York would save $588 million a year in taxes under our proposal. And that's the point. If the individual taxpayers in your state's benefit, your states and localities as a whole benefit, there's no logic to fighting tax fairness, fighting a plan that would increase economic growth, create jobs, give families a much needed break, and take the weak working poor off the tax rolls altogether. Of course, we still have a job to do in Congress getting spending under control. In that connection on the revenue side, I'd like it known that I could immediately deposit $1.2 billion in cash in the Treasury if Congress will support this administration's decision to sell Conrail back to the private sector where it belongs and get the federal government out of the business of owning a railroad. I was only a kid the last time the government tried to run the railroads. That was in World War I. And it was a disaster for the country and for the railroads. Everett Dirksen might have said a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon it adds up. Well, some in Congress seem to think that they can proceed as usual in discriminately spending taxpayer dollars. And sooner or later, they'll be bailed out with a tax hike. Well, not for at least three and a half years. They won't be bailed out with a tax hike. Using Navy terms, I'll say as many times as I have to, there will be no tax hike on my watch. We Republicans have always looked for long-term solutions. This tax plan is one of those which will be working long after we've left office. As state legislators, you know that programs closer to home are more cost-efficient, better planned, and offer more assistance. But the gluttonous federal tax system has robbed you of the base for local programs. We must continue to move this wheel of government in the interest of what's right for America. And this is the time for which all of us have worked. The moment in which, together, we can build a partnership between the levels of government with a growing economy to give America the momentum for the next century. And with that, I'm going to say thank you, and God bless you all. And we're going to eat dessert. Thank you all. May I have the envelope, please? I haven't done this since I was on the stage at the Academy Awards. Not getting an award, opening an envelope. You all understand that I've only got time for three questions. And then we're all going to have an opportunity to meet individually, which some of us are looking forward to. And so three names were pulled out of a bowl for questions. And one of them is Sheila Roeberge from New Hampshire. Do you have a question? Do I feel there will be any? I can't tell you that because of the study that we've been insisted on. And it hasn't been stalling the further research that we're doing. We discovered some things in some of the research that was going on that made us realize that we could go forward with billions and billions or hundreds of billions of dollars of imposed on industry and business in this country and maybe not solve the problem. Now, one of the things we learned, for example, that we thought needed more study is that in our forests, that layer underneath, it's composed of tree leaves. And if it's that kind of forest pine needles and all of this actually contains far more acid than any acid rain. And when it rains, and the water falls, and then goes through that and finally finds its way into streams, unless it has gone through enough limestone on the way to offset this, it will go into the stream with far more acid than anything that's falling from the skies. On the old days, the reason things didn't happen like lakes dying was because there wasn't anyone around to put out the forest fires. So every time there was a forest fire, that was all burned up. And then for a long period of time until it accumulated, you didn't have that acid effect. Well, we think some things like that need to be studied to make sure that we don't spend all of our effort on, say, smokestacks and then find that we haven't done anything to stop the killing of the lakes and streams. So I can't tell you when we'll have the information that we need, but we're determined to get at it. And of course, those of you who might not know, there is another thing that can be helpful. Lakes that have supposedly been killed by acid rain can be restored by liming. Putting lime in those lakes will eliminate the acid and clean them up. So we're after it. We're not neglecting it. Now, Judith Ann Miller from Michigan. In Michigan, we're very concerned about the Great Lakes and have been very concerned that the research labs there are being closed in terms that are helping us keep those Great Lakes viable in the line. I'd just like to know what you would like to do about that problem that we've got in Michigan, keep the Great Lakes viable and the research coming so that we can keep them viable. Well, I can't tell you what's specific right now. I don't have something of that kind in mind. But I can tell you that we are determined contrary to the information that has been spread about me supposedly to be an enemy of environment. When I was governor of California, we started the whole thing in California about protecting the environment. And I'm not going to change my mind now. I can promise you that I will look into that. And maybe in some of the briefings we're going to have, there will be someone that knows some specific that we might be doing about it. But being a native Illinois-ian myself, I have to tell you that I don't think anyone in this government or any other of our administration will ever allow the Great Lakes to be anything less than what they presently are. They're too much of a great asset and a beauty for our country. So I'll make sure that we have something in mind and are doing something about it. And the third one, is this your writing, Maureen? Oh, yeah. Have I got it right? Shirley Duke of Tennessee? Dewey. Dewey. Dewey. They look like a K to me. I bring you grace from Tennessee to give you an answer. We love you. I have a question having to do with nuclear waste. We've been informed in Tennessee that we will probably be selected as the site, or a temporary site, for storage of nuclear waste. And I want to know what the federal government is going to do to assist us in assuring that we have the transportation that would be necessary to bring that into our study and that we have the technology to handle nuclear waste? I believe that I can say and I know every state that has been named as a possible. And incidentally, the states weren't just picked out of a hat like these names. The states were picked because of terrain features and so forth in which they offered the best opportunity for safe storage. And I know that there are a number of things that can be done. We know, for example, that that kind of nuclear waste can be encased in ceramics, a glass, things of that kind, and last for, I don't know how many, hundreds of years, perfectly safe, but also the terrain that is picked will be picked on a basis of offering the greatest safety that can be offered. You've named another one, of course, the transportation thing, but all of those are prime considerations in wherever the final sites are that no one in this country must be endangered by the need to do this. We were talking a little bit about it over here. I wish big rockets were cheaper so we could shoot them out into space and let them keep on going forever. But I don't think the waste is that dangerous. Certainly it does not offer an explosive danger as some people fear about atomic power plants or the fuel. Those people who have terrified that a nuclear power plant could someday become a bomb, that's impossible. It cannot be. But I can assure you that there won't be a decision made until we have everything protected. I can just tell you that some of the things I've been associated with directly are protection of nuclear plants and nuclear weapons. We're constantly updating that with every new step in technology to make sure that they would not be subject to terrorist attacks or thievery or anything of that kind. As I say, I'm quite sure that there won't be any problem anyone will have about it. It's going to be easier than finding some of the ashes from the coal we're burning. Well, yes, thank you. Well, we'll see you all in the next room.