Years ago, I was told as a young legislator that there's a fine line between doing things for people and doing things to people.

Okay. So I'm really talking the step before that then, and that's where you're not talking about now, that social media side of that.

This is the latest technological battle we're going to deal with.

Yes. Right. Yes, that part I understand.

We've got to have some kind of balance in the conversation.

It does require a legislative fix.

That would be very helpful not only for the State, but for the Nation as well.

We absolutely need encrypted technology because we are very exposed.

All of these statements sound good in a press release, but the slightest level of scrutiny reveals a significant lack in authenticity, substance and merit.

Those are some new thoughts we haven't heard before.

The President's Intended Nationally Determined Contribution--that is a new one, that is INDC--is not only unrealistic, but it also does not add up.

I think the Senate needs to look hard at that and ask itself, going forward, does it really want to let the President make these kinds of commitments.

But this Administration has never done this type of work.

I went over as the one man truth squad, Barbara, to let them know that it wasn't going to happen and it didn't happen.

I think that is very disturbing.

the President may have creative legal arguments to sign onto a legally non-binding international agreement but he does not have the backing of the U.S. Senate.

What we are doing here is exactly what we did previously by treaty.

My farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma understand this. They understand that the greatest problem they are facing is nothing that we normally face in the Ag Bill but it is overregulation by the EPA.