But if it did, wouldn't that be the realm of Congress and not the EPA?

does not having an Arctic Operation Plan (OPLAN) make it difficult--or impossible--to resource important arctic capabilities like the SUSV?

Do you think it makes sense to remove any combat brigades from Alaska, given what the Russians are doing?

I have heard talk about, hey, we do not have combat troops over there. I know that is obviously a mistaken assumption.

I did not get a direct answer. Do you think there is a need for that?

If you look at a map of what the Russians are doing in the Arctic, it is pretty significant.

what is the status of our Arctic camouflage, and has it kept pace with advancements in thermal imagining and radar detection?

I just want to make sure we are not creating redundancies when, General Cheek, as you mentioned, we are also looking at tough choices about removing forces from critically strategic locations like Alaska.

the stakes are awfully high as we're looking at something as of stepping into Title II and to the Internet.

I am hopeful that in this Congress, we will be able to take these long efforts across the finish line.

This legislation simply codifies an existing exemption regarding the regulation of lead tackle and ammunition.

This legislation represents years of hard work by the sporting community, and I am appreciative of the efforts that have gone into crafting what is a collection of bills that have demonstrated broad-based bipartisan support, including some…

Our natural resources are something important to us as a Country, us as a people.

OK, so I am still not sure that is responsive to Senator Inhofe's question.

I can't think of a program that ever exemplifies the Federal taxpayer getting more back for the resource they own by Constitution.

today I rise to support the Justice for Trafficking Victims Act, and I want to commend the numerous Senators-- Cornyn, Klobuchar, and so many others--who have worked so hard to move this act forward. I realize there are many of us who are…

We are doing nothing essentially. We have a 13-page Arctic strategy that nobody seems to be paying attention to in my view.

I appreciate in particular the emphasis in your testimony, particularly during the challenging times we are all seeing with regard to the budget, on the frugality or what I like to refer to in testimony yesterday with the Commandant and…

I think would send a really, really bad signal to Vladimir Putin and others.

The clean water rule, the 'waters of the U.S.' rule, is one of these issues that when you talk about no support, either in the law or the people, I think it is something that is happening right now.

That is the big issue right now. You said you didn't do that in your clean air issue and, a lot of States sued.

I think one of the things they are most concerned about is two interrelated themes that most Alaskans, I would say the vast majority, is concerned about.

To me when the leader of an agency comes to a State and makes those kinds of statements to a national newspaper, it doesn't show that you are focused on serving the people you are required to serve.

There are a lot of people in Alaska, and I think throughout the Country, who are doubting the legal basis for which your agency is acting.

You cannot. That is why we need a legal opinion that says you are not doing that when many people think you are doing that.