Jim Inhofe

I think that should be left to the cities and the States to make determinations as to what is best for them.

This report is a strong indictment of the current interagency system and I applaud the CWC's important work.

I asked for unanimous consent to be recognized following the remarks by the Senator from Tennessee. It has been called to my attention that the Senator from Virginia would like to have the floor at this time, so I renew my unanimous…

I would also comment that two of Al Gore's speeches in New York were canceled because of snow storms up there, too.

First of all, why didn't the Corps release more water in March, April and early May, when they knew they were losing storage capacity?

As Senator Boozman had mentioned, the Mississippi River Tributaries project, the Nation has invested $13.9 billion putting that system together.

Thank you. I will do the same thing as the Chairman and I have had a chance to visit with Secretary Darcy.

I am not sure he has ever been to Oklahoma.

I believe we know what is best for our States.

There is no technology that is going to regulate farm dust.

The effect of the EPA rules is already being felt with two powerplants being idled as a result of just the EPA's rules.

We have been acknowledged as having the largest recoverable reserves of coal, oil and gas of any country in the world.

President Obama wants electricity rates to skyrocket as he told the San Francisco Chronicle recently, 'If somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can, it is just that it will bankrupt them.'

I love green jobs. When the technology is there, we are all for it.

The EPA is waging war on affordable energy that is undermining economic growth.

In fact, in 2007, I worked with then-Senator Clinton to pass the Federal Buildings, along with Senator Boxer, Energy Conservation Act, a bill that encourages use of geothermal.

I had suggested you answer those for the record, because we are using too much time here.

I think it points out the need for us to be more aggressive in this area.

These strict regulatory approaches are costly and have questionable environmental gains attached to them.

I hope we can learn from these expensive, heavy-handed approaches and find ways to support States in developing scientifically sound management approaches.

I appreciate the Committee's broad approach to the extremely complex and difficult topic of nutrient pollution.

States need room to innovate and respond to local water quality needs. So a one size fits all solution to nitrogen and phosphorus pollution is neither desirable nor necessary.

Having some nutrients in the waterway is normal. The question is, how much is too much, and that is what we look to the science to answer.

It is very important for us to hear the States' perspective.

I recently released a report exposing the high cost of the EPA's water regulations and the impacts on State and local government.