Jim Inhofe

This goes way back. And I can remember sitting up here back when Senator Feingold actually introduced the Clean Water Restoration Act.

I think that the mistake here in the way it is being applied is that they consider the ultimate consumer to actually be coming from a Walmart or something like that.

We will be supporting him, Senator Session and Senator Heller, with a bill that stops the EPA from finalizing the guidance.

I just want to get some kind of a commitment that we are going to let them enjoy the exemption that is in the law right now in terms of the fertilizers sales.

I would recommend it to every person who works at the Environmental Protection Agency.

But even as President Obama stands in the oil field pretending to support this pipeline, he continues full force with his efforts to regulate fossil fuels out of existence.

Well, we told the public that the new unit MACT Standards would not prevent new units from being built.

In these tough economic times, it doesn't make sense to spend $240 million on something that will have no effect.

I would like to remind everyone, I do not have to remind everyone, everyone knows it was the President unilaterally that stopped the XL Pipeline.

If we could get all of the politicians out of the way, we would be able to be totally independent of the Middle East not in a matter of years but in a matter of months.

If EPA continues down this road they will be imposing additional costs on hundreds of small businesses and farmers in rural America.

Instead of taking a hard look inside EPA and making difficult choices about programs that burden our economy, this budget cuts the funding to States that actually pay for some of the unfunded mandates imposed on communities.

I saw four themes emerge. Admittedly, you may not agree with my interpretation. First, an escalation in climate change funding; second, increasing the cost of fuel at the pump; third, beefing up EPA's regulatory budget while cutting the…

Remember, it is President Obama himself who said that his policies would necessarily, under his energy costs, would necessarily skyrocket.

It comes right at the time when President Obama is in my State of Oklahoma touting the virtues of fossil fuel.

There is a reason that we have in the law that they are exempt.

Even on areas where we have bipartisan agreement, like Brownfields or DERA (Diesel Emissions Reduction Act), you have proposed to cut these programs while increasing the funding for your political priorities.

Oklahoma has over 83,000 producing wells and 43,000 producing natural gas wells.

I stand with the American people, and as Chairman I will fight any efforts to undermine your work.

We were really sincere in that above includes coal.

EPA's policy of increasing the price of fuel certainly seems to be working: AAA notes that gas prices are up 108 percent since President Obama took office.

The proposed budget for EPA to address climate change has expanded to nearly a quarter of a billion dollars.

It has turned out that could be the most damaging thing in terms of ag.

It is kind of interesting that he is doing that in that his budgets that he has put forward have been very punitive to that industry.

Every private property owner in America should be particularly concerned in light of the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday in the case of Sackett v. EPA.