I would be greatly disappointed if Administrator Sunstein refused to testify before this Subcommittee, especially in light of the fact that his predecessors have testified before the Science Committee and its Subcommittees nearly a dozen times.

This Committee certainly should inquire into the cost-benefit analysis of environmental regulations.

Should we really value the lives of older Americans less than younger Americans, as at least one of our witnesses apparently favors?

They might decide that Congress is really just more interested in pleasing special interests than in protecting the health of our mothers and fathers.

The Bush Administration recognized that and dropped the idea of a 'senior death discount' in economic cost-benefit analysis.

Instead, this hearing is one more forum for specific big industries to air their grievances about the EPA.

As far as you know, does the EPA--did they change the requirements for Dallas and Houston based on this scientific data?

your decisions on the base load facility it will be "directly and negatively impacted by the new carbon pollution standard for power plants despite the Agency's claim that there is zero cost associated with the rule."

the President's campaign Website includes an 'all of the above' energy page that neglects to even acknowledge the fuel providing 45 percent of the United States' electricity: coal.

I believe we can make far better investments with public funds by increasing energy efficiency and expanding our use of renewable energy.

We should not sacrifice sustainable communities and livelihoods in an attempt to mimic Earth's geologic process of converting rock into oil.