David Vitter

Are those mistakes elsewhere in State plans?

I just want to note that factored into the EPA's Louisiana plan are just facts that aren't there, capacity that isn't there, that isn't operating.

What I am hearing is you factored in overall national economic growth. That is not what I am talking about.

I also think it is useful to know a domestic, a U.S., we are representing U.S. citizens, a U.S. cost benefit analysis.

I look forward to hearing from Administrator McCarthy on EPA's proposed existing source rule.

It is really a truly unprecedented, outside the fence set of regulations that will have major negative impacts on our Nation's electricity system.

EPA's proposed rule will increase costs to families, schools, hospitals and businesses and in doing so, as always, it will hit the poor, the elderly, those on fixed incomes the hardest.

Madam Administrator, it appears in the proposal's accompanying regulatory impact analysis that climate benefits are calculated using your interagency working group's social cost of carbon estimates.

Mr. Lighfoot, are NASA and the taxpayers being refunded for damaged cargo?

Mr. Lightfoot, has an Aeronautical Safety Advisory Review Panel inquiry taken place?

General Shelton, according to reports, SpaceX's three cargo resupply missions for NASA have suffered significant failures.

Mr. Lightfoot, it is to be noted that the NASA Inspector General (IG) has glossed over much of this.

It is time to develop our own rocket.

Charlie was first introduced to Close Up in 1974 when he was chief of staff for Senator Bennett Johnston and helped secure funding for the Allen J. Ellender Fellowships that served to provide support for economically disadvantaged students…

Years ago when this first started, a lot of us believed it was true because that was what was supposed to be believed.

However, it is defined so broadly that all or virtually all the Republican members of this committee would be among the 97 percent.

If the United States acts alone, it will have a very insignificant effect.

In reality, that is a complete red herring. States are forced into achieving questionable emission reduction targets from a limited menu of economically damaging and legally questionable options.

I just point that out because that is one of the most common rallying cries about this cartoonish debate, severe weather.

I think Senator Boozman's comment and explanation of the 97 percent figure really goes to that.

The only thing missing from this strategy is an empty promise from the President. If you like your affordable energy, you can keep your affordable energy.

Electricity prices right now in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative States and California are 45 percent higher than in my home State of Louisiana.

The science and economic consequences and legal underpinnings of the EPA's actions to advance the President's climate action plan are topics the Administration does not want to discuss in detail.

States are left little choice but to join or create regional cap and trade programs which achieves the Administration's goal of making sure we all pay more for energy.

However, their unilateral actions will increase America's electricity bills, decrease family disposable income and result in real job losses for little or no measurable impact on our ever changing climate.