David Vitter

I am real concerned, as are many of my Republican colleagues about the EPA and a new proposed rule.

I certainly agree and will continue to push that.

The idea would be to deal with those issues under our jurisdiction in an aggressive way, in a way that helps rebuild trust in the trust fund.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all of our witnesses.

I fully support that process, but I also want to encourage more of that, more markups where there is significant bipartisan work going on.

It is unfortunate that any bill which has significant support throughout the Senate would not move expeditiously.

I certainly want to commend Senator Manchin, Representatives Capito and Rahall, and all those who have worked tirelessly in the wake of this unfortunate spill.

I am certainly proud to have introduced the first ever bipartisan TSCA reform bill with the late Senator Lautenberg.

I hope we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to change our laws and oversight to make sure we keep our people safe.

The United States would be prepared to reduce ceilings on deployed strategic warheads by as much as one-third below New START levels

Our nuclear deterrent is the ultimate protection against a nuclear attack on the United States and through extended deterrence, it also serves to reassure our distant allies of their security against regional aggression

If you believe most or all of these sites are not safe or not safe enough, then that is a good result.

You have said several times you don't have adequate resources, so I am talking about that broader challenge.

You know, I think oftentimes in Government, and in Washington in particular, we become very process-oriented and lose the forest for the trees.

If you become completely process oriented, I am sure you are dealing with more because you have created that process.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for convening today's hearing.

I do want to note for the record her aggressive fight for complete transparency of agencies under the jurisdiction of this committee.

I hope you can understand my general concern, which is it took a court order to have the NRC follow a clear legal mandate.

Like many others, I continue to be concerned about Eximbank deals that finance projects essentially in direct competition with U.S. businesses.

It seems very clear that Eximbank financing in many cases has given foreign carriers a significant competitive advantage against domestic carriers.

If the government had been more forthcoming about what is not known about the leaked chemicals, citizens and local officials would have been able to make better choices about the actions needed to protect their families and communities.

Well, 97 percent is very catchy. But what is the underlying question?

I appreciate that. I think the timing of that response says a lot.

I want to get back to this push for us to talk in a fairly precise, disciplined way about the science and not be cartoonish about it.

Is it fair to say whatever the committee wishes, if it is a committee invitation?