I think you--it just seems to me, you'd be so much better off focusing on either a carbon tax or absolutely no free allowances whatsoever, and just returning the money back to the American people.

Senator Murkowski, you raised those questions in your opening statement.

additional layers of bureaucratic regulation that may be duplicative, inefficient, or counterproductive should be taken off the table.

if those EPA regulations don't go away, if EPA acts, what incentive is there for us to continue to pursue a climate policy, from the congressional perspective?

we need to understand what goes on within the volatility aspect.

I think we have a very narrow tax base and very high marginal tax rates. That, by all reasonable economic measures, inhibits economic growth.

As we are looking to how we define the carbon price signal, in the discussion this morning about permits and allocations, we recognize that you have real value with these permits.

Mr. Chairman, my time is expired, but perhaps we can have a second round.

We also support the legislation's phase-out of highly enriched uranium exports, given the safeguards in the legislation for its temporary continued use during a period of insufficient supply of molybdenum-99.

Go elsewhere to nations to where the environmental regulations are not near as stringent.

I think industry would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate where it's being done right.

I commend you for the efforts that have been made to really play out the technologies so that you're able to gain the resource while at the same time working to care for the environment.

It's not only jobs, it's energy security for this Nation.

When we put in place in policies that say, 'OK, we're going to shorten your lease terms,' what does that do for you, from a business perspective?

I think we recognize that there's a need for balance in resource production with our responsibility to protect the environment.

In my view, environmental regulations in the U.S. are amongst the most stringent that we see anywhere in the world.

I would say that the U.S. programs are the most comprehensive and--'strict' would probably be appropriate word to use, as well--in the world.

We have seen the impact in terms of the cost, the time lines. Resolution is multi-generational.

I have made it very clear that any climate policy that decreases the use of natural gas would be a step backward, because natural gas is a natural ally of our low-carbon goals.

We support congressional action on a climate bill, and we--promptly--that supports a diversified portfolio.

I think, without exception, the comments have been that we have an available, secure supply of natural gas that can last for 100 or 150 years.

I think the purpose here is to simply examine how natural gas can serve as a complement to clean coal, to nuclear, to renewables, in an all-of-the-above energy policy.

DTNA appreciates Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski for holding an important hearing on the role of natural gas in mitigating climate change.

What do you need from Congress to give you that level of certainty to make these long-term investments in your businesses?

We believe this approach is the best to tackle climate change, enhance U.S. energy security, and meet the Nation's growing need for energy.