Jim Inhofe

I know Obama's global warming regulations are no friend of farmers.

They will have a devastating effect if these regulations go into effect on the farmers of rural Oklahoma. It will be our No. 1 concern and No. 1 issue.

We know the American people know that the rule will be expensive, and it is very alarming that we have to do this.

I have to say that I know Oklahoma's global warming regulations are no friend of farmers.

I think that we could really get to the bottom of a lot of this stuff that is going on as far as influencing our political agenda here in Washington, DC.

I have a feeling that we are going to be able to stop it in spite of $50 million.

The cost of it, and this comes from Wharton School, it comes from MIT, it comes from Charles Rivers Associates, is between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. That would be the largest tax increase in history.

This rule will require power plants around the country to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2030.

The Chamber of Commerce recently conducted a study on a similar design of regulations and concluded they would cause the loss of $51 billion in GDP and 224,000 jobs each year.

For decades, the environmental left has pushed to enact the cap and trade, and again, Congress has rejected it.

All we talk about around here since Barbara Boxer became chairman of this committee is trying to make people believe that the world is coming to an end.

You and I were just there, not long ago, I say to Senator Sessions, and that country is about 3 years ahead of us in coming through with all these regulations.

If we force the same regulations on underdeveloped nations, like those in Africa, the impact will be devastating.

Regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency threaten the reality and affordability of our electricity grid, will weaken our economy, and drive more people into the unemployment lines.

The President has also been encouraging the international adoption of these same regulations, particularly as they relate to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

I admit I have been a bit paranoid about the over regulation that we have right now coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency.

I think in my opening statement I used 1 out of 10,000,000 years once a plant ceases operations and the last fuel is removed from the reactor and has cooled for a relatively short period of time.

To me, this kind of responsiveness is exactly what we need.

We should not legislate something that is working well on a voluntary basis.

We have heard a lot of predictions about what could happen this summer and following summers if we were to have blackouts or brownouts in this country.

It has been my experience in the past that the less the workload, the greater the bureaucracy, the more time they have to regulate.

I don't think that is the case.

I have full confidence in the NRC's ability to handle the nuclear decommissioning process.

I have been critical of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over many things.

The likelihood of a radiological release is very low, about 1 time in 10,000,000 years or lower.