I think it is in the interest of an energy policy that we have national predictability on fracking and on getting natural gas.

It is my understanding that those cost-benefit requirements were as a result of congressional action that you need to do those types of analyses.

This is a serious issue of public health for our community.

There is also a human cost here. If it is your child that is suffering from asthma, and can't go to camp because of the warnings that are being given...

I do know Senator Inhofe wanted to nationalize our energy industry.

To achieve the numbers that the EPA is proposing, just take a look at the work that was done in Maryland.

Domestic oil production has increased--increased--every year President Obama has been in office.

We desperately need an energy policy for this country.

The good news is that the answer for all three lies in a similar solution.

I think a national consumption tax can be done in a fairer way than our current income taxes.

I do not really have a public insurance option that may be competitive.

Is it--it's not fair to describe that the risk or the consequences between waste water injection and CCS are comparable.

Federal Research concludes quake risk from drilling low, avoidable.

I think that the focus here on CCS and waste water injection is an interesting one.

It sounds like so much of this is, is we are learning. That's an important piece to recognize in all of this as well.

We were in West Virginia this weekend looking at--we were at the Marcellus. They were speaking exactly to that process of the recycling and how that all plays into it.

We've got new EPA rules that essentially ban construction of new coal fired power plants unless CCS is out there.

In terms of scale do we need to double the monitoring that we're doing?