Jim Bridenstine

I think that what we should expect to see is the Chinese attempting to redefine the international rules to new sets that will basically benefit the Chinese.

Given their notorious lack of transparency, we do not know their true intentions with a space station.

The Space Race is over, and we won.

I just want to make it clear on the record, back in May EPA Administrator McCarthy stated that she will expedite issuing regulations for reducing methane emissions from existing sources, so that is not speculation.

EPA's methane rule relies on faulty scientific evidence and data, and the final rule constitutes an abuse of authority.

Like all regulations promulgated by the EPA, the methane regulation is no different. It stifles economic growth, destroys American jobs, and increases energy prices.

EPA cherry-picks the science that fits its agenda and ignores the science that does not support its position.

These rules will cost billions of dollars, place a heavy burden on American families, and diminish the ability of American businesses to compete around the world.

The EPA has become an agency that promotes an extreme political agenda rather than reasonable policies based on sound science.

I just want to say to our panelists here today, a vote has been called and so we'll be interrupted, regrettably.

Oklahoma is leading the way in demonstrating that responsible exploration and production with industry-led voluntary emission reduction practices realizes decreased emissions without burdensome mandates from the EPA.

Even if we shut down and stopped all American oil and gas production, it will have no impact on global temperatures.

EPA is simply exaggerating their claims.

Technological advances under development and implemented by industry will only lead to further reductions, without the need for costly and burdensome EPA regulations.

According to the study's author, 'The U.S. energy industry contributes little to the overall burden of global fossil fuel emissions.'

EPA should take a breath and realize that the best available science does not support new rulemaking.

I am concerned about the EPA's expansive interpretation of its regulatory scope and its continued use of questionable scientific bases for rulemaking.

My mission here is to get as much data, the right data so that we can ultimately move to a day where we have zero deaths from tornadoes.

I think all of us on both sides of the aisle agree that we absolutely must have a government backbone because it is for the lives and safety of our citizens but also for the property of Americans.

I've been encouraged that NOAA is moving forward with the commercial weather data pilot as outlined in the bipartisan House-passed weather bill, H.R. 1561. I'm very pleased with that.

I look forward to an in-depth discussion today about how private-sector data and products can build on the foundation provided by NOAA to help enhance the safety of all Americans.

I was encouraged by NOAA's budget request this year for commercial weather, which includes funding to continue the Commercial Weather Data Pilot program authorized by our House-passed weather bill.

I am troubled that the minority has chosen to mischaracterize the Committee's investigation...

I would also argue that in my state of Oklahoma we have a lot of really great folks that work in the energy industry...

As you're aware, Attorney General, there are a lot of businesses that are looking for places to locate, and when they believe that the state of Oklahoma is going to have their electricity prices increased by 20 percent, manufacturers start…