I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________

The Secretary of State yesterday talked about, 'actually living in a period of less daily threats to American and people in the world normally.'

I think that your service, particularly providing real, accurate threat assessments to not only the Congress, but to the American people, the administration, is absolutely, fundamentally critical if we're going to get a hold of these--many…

We proudly wear the title of the State that has the most veterans per capita of any State in the country.

We do not want the backlog to be kind of a whack-a-mole issue.

the recent National Security Strategy document from the White House lists, I believe, climate change if--as one of the top, if not the top, national security threat, relative to, say, Iran gaining nuclear weapons, or ISIS.

I would love to get rid of it in the English language.

there are a couple things going on here that give a sense of frustration from the Members.

The President, himself, in the State of the Union, talked about the crisis of 9/11 and everything has passed.

This has done very, very well under an unique government role, our Government, our country.

I think a lot of people would dispute what you are saying right now on that issue.

I think we have an Administration that with all due respect to what has been said, has not been very adept at global negotiations.

I want to thank the panelists. In full disclosure, Mr. Chairman, I will let you know that I have worked very closely with Ambassador Gross in previous jobs the two of us have held together.

Again, another issue with this Administration I have a problem with is taking action where you have no legal authority under the Constitution.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

I think one of the general themes here that you're seeing is that people are applauding the success.

The mere fact that 31 States oppose this power plan and more than half believe it is not legal under the Clean Air Act.

EPA's interpretation is also unreasonable because it would bring about an enormous transformative expansion of EPA's regulatory authority without clean congressional authorization.

A lot of these require actions by Congress under the Constitution.

When we're looking at our challenges--and there are many national security challenges--that we level with the American people.

It is not just my view. Are you familiar with the recent Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA decision by the U.S. Supreme Court?

I certainly don't think that relatively flimsy agreements between the President and China authorize the EPA to do anything that Congress has not authorized.

The President supposedly is going to put forward a bill to do that. It will go nowhere in this Congress.

I think it's important to have condition-based withdrawal dates or transition dates based on success.

I think this goes to the leveling with the American people on what we're actually doing.