Jim Inhofe

I think that is a good thing to have in the record.

Thank you very much. I do think that we are going to be talking about the cumulative effect up here, even though the EPA may not see that as advisable.

Yet the formal State implementation deadline is 2018.

So what you are saying is that in the event it is something that falls into this category that you are not going to have any kind of a punitive action against States who are unable to do something that falls into this category, is that…

I was one of the original co-sponsors of the 1990 Clean Air Act exemptions.

These regulatory actions are based on a dubious science and an accumulation of improper collusion with extremist environmental groups and their sue-and-settle tactics.

These regulations would cost hundreds of billions of dollars leaving stakeholders with an economic burden that will take generations to pay down.

It is very telling when you have a Democrat Senator who is generally supportive of the EPA's efforts calling the final rule a slap in the face.

Do you have the rules of engagement you need or do they need to be modified?

Are universities and technology institutions graduating both the numbers needed to fill force requirements and personnel with the right skill sets to ensure we maintain a dominant offensive and defensive capable cyber force?

Has the DOD established a pipeline for the development of a future cyber force?

How does the U.S. deter cyber-attacks?

Do you consider all cyber-attacks against the U.S. a national security threat?

Are we incorporating cyber security into the development of all our new weapons systems during the acquisition process?

How are we addressing the recruiting and sustainment of personnel to eliminate critical cyber expert shortages?

I will never forget it. It was primarily driven by Vice President Gore to do away with the live range down there.

It is important that we hear directly from the EPA's top official about what caused this spill.

Both the EPA and the contractor knew that there was a risk of a blowout at the Gold King Mine.

I again look forward to working with my colleagues from Colorado and New Mexico.

Why didn't the EPA ask the Inspector General or another Federal agency or group like the National Academies that does not have a conflict of interest?

I question whether the Interior Department has the independence and the expertise necessary to conduct this review.

Passing long overdue reforms to our Federal mining law which has not been updated since 1872 is critical if we want to address the root cause of this disaster.

This is significant, though, and we need to know.

Are you aware that delaying publication until the end of October interferes with the ability of Congress and the public to legally challenge the rules before the big show in Paris?

Did EPA designate the clean up here as time critical to cut corners and avoid having to do a detailed engineering study?