Jim Inhofe

It's just over and above it. That's the point.

We've already seen that this is going to have a devastating effect on long-term financial impact for those who are currently serving.

This meeting here today is about compensation.

My concern has always been in the readiness area.

Section 403 of the BBA breaks these promises.

To change that, I think, becomes a moral issue.

I believe we must find a way to repeal it and I predict that we will.

I believe it is unfair to single out military retirees in a Federal deficit reduction effort.

It's tough, because you're going to hear from some of the uniforms that it could increase risk. Of course, risk is lives.

The main thing we want to hear before this committee is that you do have a commitment to do your best.

Congress remains committed to the nuclear modernization promises that were made back when they were getting the votes for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

I really believe that if anyone can do it, you can do it.

I have 700 scientists I listed in a speech on the Senate floor, probably 8 years ago, and these are scientists, Richard Lindzen from MIT, these are top scientists, totally refuting the assertion that is being made on which we are spending…

I had an amendment that kind of re-emphasized Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act.

We are talking about the largest tax increase in the history of this country if we were to go through with what they are trying to do through regulation that they could not do through legislation and not get anything for it.

Thank you. Let me try to get this out really quickly.

Sadly, those who raise legitimate questions are portrayed as 'anti-science.' But there is nothing scientific about discrediting conflicting evidence and asking reasonable questions.

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

I reject the notion that the 1970 Clean Air Act gave EPA the power to force every coal-fired power plant in America to capture and store carbon dioxide.

I know this Administration and I will probably never agree on the science of global warming. But we can set that aside for now and focus on perhaps the more alarming issue--the politics of the EPA's regulations.

From this point on can we really that we are not going to be activating these regulations until such time as we know the effect it will have on jobs and the economy?

Can we say that we would not implement these rules until we have that information?

The delay of placing it on the Federal Register until January was done for the political purpose that I outlined.

The President's climate agenda is hindering our economic recovery.

The whole implementation of the rule would not reduce GHG emissions worldwide because it would only apply to the United States.