Jim Inhofe

His carbon regulations for new, modified and reconstructed, and existing power plants are nothing more than high-cost, unprecedented power grabs.

There is no doubt, and wide reaching consensus that the price of power would increase under the President's latest regulations.

The single most important thing we need to do is increase the manufacturing of products in the United States versus China.

The Clean Power Plan alone would cost $479 billion, result in double digit electricity price increases in 43 States and reduce grid reliability.

When China produces goods, they emit 300 percent more CO2 than we do here.

This is not where the problem is. The problem is in India, China, Mexico and other places.

This type of legislation or rule is regressive.

I remember when we had the first appointed Director of the EPA, Lisa Jackson in the room. It was during the COP in Copenhagen.

If you come back from Rio de Janeiro or one of these places with a treaty that either hurts our economy or does not require the same thing from China and other countries, then we would not ratify it.

Both the Department of Defense and infrastructure are absolutely critical responsibilities of the Federal Government.

Regaining the floor, I would only say to my good friend that as the second ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, I have talked about these for a long time. I tried to do them before I left for 4 days on business. Also, Senator…

I rise for a special request. I just returned from a military trip overseas with four other Members just a matter of minutes ago to find out that the two amendments that I was trying to get pending--and I would really settle for just one…

Mr. Kezar, under the current law, the EPA does not have the authority to approve State permitting programs for coal ash disposal and the technical requirements in the EPA's rules are enforceable only through citizen suits.

If you are talking right now about contracts starting to be let, could this be a problem if this changed and they were not able to use the coal ash as it is being used today?

That is an excellent statement. Thank you, Mr. Gray.

You also mentioned some of the discussions in the House would rectify that, would take out some of the uncertainty, correct?

We hear the term uncertainty quite a bit up here. This is one of the problems out there with a lot of the rules and regulations.

You spent a lot of your time talking about transportation infrastructure. It could not be more timely here and now.

Thank you, Senator Markey.

I think that is our constitutional duty and it is in the oath you just took.

The court is left wondering whether the EPA has learned from its mistakes or if it will merely continue to address FOIA requests in the clumsy manner that has become its custom.

A lot of us believe that is what is going on in the Waters of the United States rule, which is why we are taking appropriate action.

What else is there for us to carry out the oversight provisions?

Do you think that is a legitimate exercise of our authority in the Congress, in this committee, to say, you know, these candidates might be qualified, they are certainly motivated to serve their Country, but until we actually get answers…

It is patently unreasonable, not to say outrageous, for the EPA to insist on seizing expansive power that it admits the statute is not designed to grant.