If money is so tight and our weather satellite programs are so vulnerable, then perhaps the Administration needs to evaluate its priorities and determine which is more important: near-term weather monitoring, which can save lives and…

We can't have launch date slips because any further launch date slips like what happened on GOES, it appears insignificant, it is actually significant because it affects the backup situation.

Such conflicts are by their nature the most intractable, ruthless, long-lasting, and bloody of any form of warfare.

Perhaps after more than half a century we might take a page from the Eisenhower era and accept the premise that saying no is the best of a very bad set of strategic alternatives.

Are we really willing as a Nation to put the lives of our soldiers at risk to serve a purpose unrelated to our vital National interests?

We know how this war will begin but no one in the administration can postulate how it will end.

Killing more Syrians won't deter Iranian resolve to confront us.

We should not put American lives at risk to make up for a slip of the tongue about red lines.

This government is out of control. It has become too big and too intrusive. It is spending too much. It is taxing too much. It is regulating too much. It is borrowing too much. And it's sticking its ugly nose into our business too much…

I am a southerner and I can't pronounce words like that. I don't know Italian.

We have to be a Nation governed by law and due process, and that is the whole reason for this hearing.

That process is in place and it takes us very far downfield to making a good decision.

It is unconscionable for the Administration, any Administration, to deny U.S. citizens their day in court.

My position has always been, if the Pebble mine will harm the fisheries and environment, as some believe, it should not be allowed.

To me, the question at hand comes down to one of due process.

Would allowing the Pebble project to present a plan to go through the NEPA permitting process result in any environmental harm?

As I stated in my opening statement, I am an avid hunter, fisherman and conservationist.

don't we have a responsibility to coordinate just a little bit better?

All they want, they say, is a fair and thorough evaluation of their claims. That is reasonable.

the truth of the matter is we want to be compliant, but we are overwhelmed.

How is it going to cause environmental harm, though?

I cannot support actions by a Federal agency that disregards laws that already exist that provide a level playing field for both industry and environmentalists alike.

Even The Washington Post, hardly regarded as a pro-mining mouthpiece, concluded in a recent editorial that regarding the mining companies, 'All they want, they say, is a fair and thorough evaluation of their claims. That is reasonable.'

A prospective decision of such magnitude by the EPA should be based on the best possible science.

Strong, independent science is of paramount importance to our environmental policies.