Jim Inhofe

Without Senate approval there will be no money, period.

President Obama cannot meet his goal of 26 to 28 percent reduction of CO2 emissions without the full implementation of this regulation.

If as Secretary Kerry recently stated, the administration does not have a problem with congress reviewing the Paris agreement, then I expect an affirmative response to testify from EPA, CEQ and the State Department in the new year.

Despite President Obama's constant rhetoric about transparency, we are a week and a half away from the start of the United Nation's twenty-first session of the Conference of Parties.

The Senate should preempt any purchase of a piece of paper.

No binding agreement from COP 21.

All right. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Delaware, I be recognized for up to 10 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wicker). Is there objection? Without objection, it is so…

There is a lot of mumbling going on. I am not sure what we finally decided to do.

The Congress has the authority to provide for the rules and regulations of the military.

We are faced with this law of large institutions that tends to dumb everything down to a lowest common denominator.

I think we need a larger defense budget, but investing in more of the same I think is not the solution.

If we want to be the world's sole super power and to be able to engage on all the continents around the world to shape peace and stability, and then fight and maintain multiple contingencies simultaneously, we need to pay for it.

Are we not giving the right emphasis to defending America?

I look down the road and think they are passing us up everywhere.

I recall when I was first elected--I came from the House to the Senate--I replaced David Boren.

The Senator mentioned the fact that we have a 6-year bill and 3 years to pay for it. That doesn't really concern me for a couple of reasons. One is that once we start projects, I can assure you that there will be a reshuffling of…

I don't agree with that. And I have made it very clear to those individuals that you--without naming them--have this philosophy.

But, to do that, it has--you have prioritize where it is.

However, as witnesses today will testify, the deep flaws in recent EPA RIAs call into question many of EPA's recent rules.

At a time when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is advancing an unprecedented regulatory agenda on top of mounting court challenges, today's hearing on regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) is absolutely critical to assessing the…

The investments have been made. Another way of saying that is the damage has already been done.

I was the bad guy, as Senator Markey knows, back in 2002, and 2003, and 2004, and 2005 when they first started coming to the world coming to an end, global warming and all that.

Today's hearing is important to understanding how EPA decides the who and the what, the where, the when, the why prior to issuing a regulation, because once it is final it may be too late.

At that time it was from Senator Markey's own MIT came out with the cost. The cost range at that time was between $300 billion and $400 billion.

If we are doing such a good job, why do we have to go into such a huge cost for the American people to come up with more regulations.