I think the answer is clearly yes.

I think that we need to not only have this program supporting companies that have long been in this industry, but companies that are emerging and have real potential to create more competition and more robust competition around the country.

the thought that this will generate $4 billion when it's up and producing annually for the Federal Government, and not a penny will go to these Gulf Coast States that served as a platform now for this industry for the last 60 to 70 years…

I just wanted to get that off my chest this morning, and our efforts for fair revenue sharing for coastal States that are at least equivalent to what interior States receive now will go on with some renewed energy.

I strongly disagreed with and continue to.

The South is emerging as quite a powerhouse in the automobile, and we'd like to make sure that that remains.

I think sometimes there is this assumption that any expansion of limits or expansion of coverage under the program is directly counter to making the program fiscally sound.

the need for a full-blown longer-term reauthorization. This reauthorization or extension in tiny increments has really not served our communities and the economy well at all.

I am certainly completely open to that path forward as long as there is a path forward.

the post-Katrina system is not working, and in my opinion, it is just the Corps trying to CYA.

Thank you for that policy change. That is enormously important.

We need every bit of growth we can get. We need every closing in sight.

I think it is in all of our interest to demand rigorous sound science in Federal agencies.

I have absolutely no faith that that is done in a sound science-based way, none.

It seems to me we could cut through a lot of this and similar debates if we had confidence in good, sound science that wasn't politicized.

She didn't do anything to deserve this.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have absolutely no confidence in the science coming out of the EPA.