look them in the eye, that coal miner, and say it's fair that you just lost your job because of our regulations.

When they cause a problem, the mines are fined immediately, and they have to come up with the money.

If a government causes a problem, should the government clean it up on their dime, or should they pass that on to the taxpayers of the country?

I want to know, you wouldn't be comfortable with it in America, so why should we be comfortable with it in Iran?

Isn't that better than burying our material and telling our grandchildren its your problem to deal with later on?

But if we subsidized our alternative fuel so dramatically, why aren't we doing that with spent fuel rods instead of burying it?

This is a subject I acknowledge is foreign to me.

It just seems to be one after another, and I don't know how we are going to stem the loss of confidence of the American public.

We export about 15 percent of what we produce in coal because obviously this administration doesn't like us burning coal in America.

if we are going to have exports, we ought to at least tax it or get some kind of fee on that export. And all I can say is, with all due respect to those that want to tax our exports, that will require a Constitutional amendment because…

the average family would be paying an additional $500 a year just for these labels on boxes.

As an organic farmer and as an organic consumer, I want to know, is it organic or is it not?

The most important thing that this bill does, in my opinion, is it defines what a genetically engineered substance, organism is.

I think that is important. People need to know.

It gives the producer some certainly as to what genetically engineered actually means.

I do think that Congress does have a role to play if there is labeling.

I am just very happy that the FDA would be--we are asking them to do a study on the safety...

I am just trying to absorb all this information. I don't come from a medical background.

Decades of reduction in ozone levels have not produced the predicted health benefit.

I find that there are other factors that are seemingly far more reasonably the cause of asthma attacks.

There is no statistical difference between the rate of asthma attacks in high-pollution areas than in non-pollution areas.

I want to close very quickly. Why are the tribes excluded from this regulation?

Well, if there is regulatory burden that is going to be imposed with this, should the EPA withhold the bill or the rule?

I know I am way over time. I would just be curious how they are going to change their operation.

What is the timeframe on getting some written--because I don't think we are going to be under 5 minutes to be able to get through our questions.