Paul Broun: “No, sir, it is not. And in fact you even intercepted our questions against the law...”

The witnesses we have are political experts, and the statement about mumbo-jumbo was basically geared towards--volatility is a scientific, measurable--as well as flammability are scientific, measurable issues.

we can see now why did we invite technical scientific experts in the field instead of political witnesses?

Shouldn't EPA's rulemaking be based on sound science as determined independently by the Agency?

If the Supreme Court throws out the president's plan, we're going to have to have something on the table.