Dan Sullivan

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…

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, General, for your testimony. It is very enlightening.

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

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

I think there's a lot of different conditions that go into the recommendations that I provide.

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

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

I think you are doing exactly what the EPA reprimanded you from doing in its recent Supreme Court case where you are taking significant power under the Clean Air Act that is dramatically expanding your powers over the U.S. economy without…

The last time I looked at the Constitution, that wasn't where the EPA derives its authority.

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.

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?

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

To me, it seems like a clear violation of that statute.

There's a lack of trust on the numbers, there's not certainty on what the end game is.