If they are able to do something without ratification, without Congress's input, wouldn't the next Administration be in the same position to undo anything that was done?

It is a shame that the Obama administration has not made this type of effort when it comes to climate change.

the President may have creative legal arguments to sign onto a legally non-binding international agreement but he does not have the backing of the U.S. Senate.

My farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma understand this. They understand that the greatest problem they are facing is nothing that we normally face in the Ag Bill but it is overregulation by the EPA.

What we are doing here is exactly what we did previously by treaty.

I went over as the one man truth squad, Barbara, to let them know that it wasn't going to happen and it didn't happen.

There is going to be a big accountability moment in November 2016, when the Republican party has to take what is presently its theory about carbon change.

That is not exactly true, because that was on a majority, a vote on a motion to proceed.

I said no, what they are telling you isn't true. We are not going to be passing cap and trade as they told you.

Why would the President come out with INDC that doesn't work mathematically?

In my view, this is troubling. When the President or the State Department makes a commitment on behalf of the United States, this is not something that should be taken lightly.

I think that is very disturbing.