Thank you to my colleague, Ms. Matsui, for her fine work and cooperation in working with me on this important issue.

Well, my biggest concern is, ma'am, that all we are trying to do is clarify something.

So if I was you I would wake up every morning.

If there is already uncertainty in it and we are trying to improve the uncertainty, but yet, we are OK with the way that it is, we move nowhere; there is no change.

Well, it would sure help the taxpayers knowing that $45 billion isn't going out the door when we can identify that it is 12.2 percent and yet we can't stop it.

There is already uncertainty out there.

My legislation doesn't alter current statutory authority for the Commission to prohibit acts or practices that are likely to cause substantial injury.

But it is so broad right now that people are left to wonder what it is; whereas, it is only within the agency's hands to determine to clarify.

Well, effectively is OK, but improving is better. There is always room for improving.

So why? Tell me the percentage to make you say that this has to be the legislation that you guys are proposing, because all it sounds like to me is just more regulation on an industry that is struggling the way that it is now.

I am really concerned that we are going after an issue that you are in favor of that isn't needed.

Well, yes, it would, because if there are a few bad apples, let's go after the bad apples, let's not go after the entire industry and use a one-size-fits-all approach that we do so often up here.

So this is just another piece of regulation that is being pushed out by a Federal agency without a need for it.

But, Mr. Smith, I am saying that you are basing your opinion not on the vets or the patients, the consumers.

Was this due to procedures not being followed or procedures not in place?

So what caused you guys to open the research and search for further information.

We want to be helpful, not a hindrance. Obviously, all of us want to be safe, but we also want to make sure that we operate within the Constitution.

They don't seem to care about hearings. They just call votes whenever.

I don't think we are arguing that, and we are doing--we are good stewards of the land behind us, but we don't need this rule. It's undue cost and undue harm to States and manufacturers around.

And just to kind of make a point here and maybe it's been brought up already, but even the National Park Service is saying that the Grand Canyon and the Sequoia National Forest where I am sure there's a tremendous amount of industry and…

I don't think it's any secret where my heart lies with the EPA. I think they overreach every day and are putting more and more pressure on States, on counties, manufacturers, job creators and the whole nine yards.

I mean, you are here today to talk about your budget, and I am concerned that the EPA is using taxpayer dollars to send employees to other countries to help them with a non-binding agreement that was set in Paris.

Do you think it is appropriate to send individuals from the EPA that are being paid by taxpayer dollars from the United States to help countries meet a non-binding agreement?

What we are doing is you are allowing agencies to... set policy for the DOE and when DOE becomes a source of agenda-driven issues rather than really focusing on making sure that we have reliable and effective, efficient energy sources to…

And when we start looking at only one factor, such as green renewables, which is an agenda-driven policy, and we take a look away from what has driven this economy and our energy resilience, I have an issue with that.