Lisa Murkowski

If the Navy and Marine Corps were financially stressed in performing their missions before, how does the unanticipated challenge of responding to an earthquake and tsunami further stress the ability of your service to perform their mission?

I do feel pretty strongly that we need to take the initiative, here in the Senate, to move toward ratification of that treaty.

Even the most modest current trends in climate change, if continued, will present new national security challenges for the U.S. Navy, for our Marine Corps, and our Coast Guard.

We are seeing an evolving Arctic; an opportunity, viewed by many, but also a very noticeable challenge to us.

I appreciate the fact that we have the ability to be nimble as a Navy, as the marines, as our armed services are.

I've been very critical of the EPA throughout this hearing, but I was raised by a mother who is very generous.

We need to better handle, in terms of what is what the criteria is and, more importantly, avoiding any arbitrary definitions.

I asked you a number of questions about the implementation of the new GHG regulations under the CAA.

Well, we want to work with you on that. We recognize that these are tight budgets.

One of the areas where Alaskans have benefited from the EPA and their programs has been the Alaska Native Villages Program.

The EPA designation comes in and essentially circumvents that public input.

The COE had approved a project. All the stakeholders involved had agreed that this was the project.

What we are faced with--we just had the--a project in the interior of the State be denied because of an ARNI designation on the Tanana River.

Not coming from a farm or an agriculture State, I think the common person would look at this and can't believe that we're having a conversation that we would be regulating milk as an oil product and need to have some kind of a response…

And those analyses, as you have indicated to Senator Blunt, would be available through the whole rulemaking process that you have, that that cost analysis would be included.

Well, and I appreciate the fact that you have just said that you don't believe that these that this will endanger human health, and that's what we're looking at in the issuance of these permits. So, then again, it begs the question, why…

One of the things that came up in this process--and you referenced the litigation, that's one thing--but, there were some different standards that were in place initially for nitrogen dioxide and no requirement for GHG emissions.

We're trying to figure out, in Alaska, as we're advancing this--we're looking at other projects that are out there.

We're asking for the EPA to do its job, which is to issue the air-quality permit, not to make a determination as to whether or not exploration activity offshore Alaska is a go or no-go.

I guess just a basic question is: Do you think that this is reasonable?

The EPA used an arbitrary designation that is neither in statute nor in regulation.

I've had so many people approach me and say, 'Lisa, you've got to reign in the EPA. They're out of control. They're going to put me out of business.'

I do not want to abolish the EPA. I simply want the EPA to do its job.

I'm very concerned that, by using this designation, the EPA has, essentially, the ability to pre-emptively signal a veto.

I cannot understand how it can take so long for an agency to approve an air permit for a drilling rig.