EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt Testifies at Confirmation Hearing CSPAN January 18, 2017 10:46pm-1:57am EST
spirit we will resume the hearing for the attorney general pruitt sometimes you can sit down over lunch to answer questions to a half-hour's open shy said something different anything that you would like to clarify quick. >> in response to the white house questions about the enforcement steps we have taken with double dipping i initiated three cases and so they have not materialized in litigation's just yet. >> thanks for that clarification in the city and cheyenne wyoming with a chemical used by the military to decrease the engines of the rocket motors
the army corps that was in charge of a nuclear missile site refuse to amend it was the cause of pollution to do of a testing needed they showed a large plume directly into the city's balls it is now protected by state of the art water facility but when you serve as the attorney general of you held them accountable in the same way? >> this was indicated in industrious ammoniac and mention the case put that this was something that we initiated. with respect to federal and state violations by have
submitted a list of cases of enforcement of the state law >> what was troubling to many of us with the previous administration with officials plan to extraordinary late -- links under the freedom of the intermission and so for examples oho epa administrator jackson used the e-mail account with the name richard windsor as opposed to corona name. will lead you refrain from taking any such action for your offical communication? been making yes. i believe that would extend
they will not move forward so what are those impacts of the mercury emissions? >> i have not stated but our challenge with the process used in the case but now be composite there isn't a statement or a belief that mercury should not be regulated some that section deals with health concerns that is the reason to control technology to believe that it should be dealt with as the body has
outlined. >> for a number of years the george bush in ministrations had several colleagues of an unknown working on legislation that is similar from what we propose in the bush and administration proposed to reduce the emissions of mercury i do not recall of bush proposal from power plants and others from mercury but i propose a proposed 80% senator alexander said they could do better than he proposed 90% reduction.
and witnesses from utilities and to focus on reducing emissions and just to reduce those emissions over the stipulated period of time for a glass it turns out fire for it was better than 80 percent funding and more quickly than anticipated. >> is there any lesson there? >> as i have indicated between the epa and the
state's with the neighborhood's solutions they could be involved and should be involved to improve air quality'' and also a meaningful partner. >> diane was like to say with albert einstein there is advantage to be gained and they made money during that but reducing emissions from the diesel engines. >> with the economic gain in
then to reduce emissions we have to have clear regulations. and working on the clear skies legislation. and we will talk about how to go forward but attended day he said this is a need to do. tell us what the rules will be and you need to get out of the way. that is what he said. and to set those standards and to those cafe standards
to set the standards to provide certainty opening the door for productivity or production. >> can you give us an example quick. >> this is not widely known and oklahoma with a generation of electricity 17% in generated that puts us the top three of the country. i have obligations to appear to set up rates looking now modifications to comply with the statutes how to achieve the air quality objective under the epa mandates. i have been very involved in that process.
>> thank you mr. chairman for the nomination. >> the country is divided on the issues in and around which you are endeavoring to headline if understanding one another is important to give a great understanding so n the crowd that just joined us are several coal miners that made some new friends and thank them for coming faugh because that is the basis of the issues that
i chide to redress for from the reagan is tory environment so this question mark this for you for very first hearing she came to testify when i would press her on the existing rules and those that rely on generation to say we try to we were scheduling national level meetings wanted to have it where people were comfortable coming up. mr. attorney general i would not be coming anywhere in this country. . .
>> i spent time with each of you, many of you. respecting you and your respective states to try to be helpful. the rule of law is very important to you. most of the cases that you brought forward and challenging the regulations so much as a process or whether the rule of law overstepped the boundaries.
could you restate that position? in a partnership with the epa and implementing and enforcing our environmental statutes. when we talk about the rule of law as you deal with mercury and co2 and water issues it's important that you do so consistent in the framework established by this body and its respected because it gives confidence to people. when you have an administrative agency that acts inconsistent or tries to enlarge its authority it does inspire confidence and you are seeing a matter of
picking winners and losers, and so that's rule of law isn't something that is academic or legal i think it's important to ensure good outcomes and improving the air and protecting our waters. >> senator white house? >> when we left off, we were talking about things that might place you in a conflict of interest that haven't been disclosed yet we were talking about the dark money operation that supports the republican attorney general's association. before we get back into that, this is a hypothetical. if you had raised significant amounts of money for the rule of law defense fund, from corporations who would be subject to the epa regulation,
might that place you in a conflict of interest? >> these are individuals as you know adjusting the view that a person has epa ethics. the rules predates citizens united and predate dark money. it doesn't mean it's not conflict of interest. it means the regulatory authority hasn't caught up with this post citizens united dark money world.
if you did address those entities to the degree that i was never officer of the super packed that you referred to earlier and so they looked to determine what the nature of the relationship was and indicated as the cases arose. >> the chair man asked a question are there matters that might please you in a conflict of interest and you answered no. might not having raised to sit back and money at stake you made a call and i did the letter for you we thought the dark money
thing we can longer the identi identity. might this not create a conflict of interest and is that where the fact -- >> in the letter indicated they arise in the future if you raise the hypothetical million dollars from energy -- >> those are not even covered entities. >> it may create a conflict of interest. >> i didn't serve their. >> that is into question. isn't the question. the question is a simple one did you raise money for the rule of law defense fund from the entities that will appear before the epa in subjects of regulations and if so, how much
and what did you ask? it seems that is not an unusual party in the future for that to be an issue. that is what is indicated in the letter to me. >> i will seek the counsel as the epa ethics. >> at this point if the hypothetical facts were true and if you had raised a million dollars from the big energy corporation to go through that's not something anybody should care about even if that corporation is before you in the subject hearing regulation. >> it is something presented in the future that would evaluate. >> if there is a matter of the case that comes before the
authority that would be something indicated in the a ler there's ongoing obligations as confirmed by the administrator. the whole purpose of advice and consent is so we can look at this exact question and the fact that they haven't been updated to take into account the dark money at all political organizations. they find out what conflicts of interest you will bring to the position of administrator and it gives me little comfort that you're not able to answer those questions. my time has expired. >> thank you. i would like to introduce for the record and article in the times headline ethics officials epa nominee.
currently the oklahoma attorney generaattorneygeneral and the ef her disclosures comply with the laws and rules in financing says it is among the least complicated of the cabinet nominees. it's ironical and hypocritical we are in the situation and my friends on the other side of the aisle in the committee using their definition of dark money as if elected official have raised millions of dollars in dark money. i would like to talk about some of the over regulatory burden statutes. in arkansas is among some of the cleanest in the nation despite the progress made looking forward to trying to do the
right thing. the reason the federal plan is going to produce an economic burden is a prime example of the regulatory atmosphere that we've had in the past with little input from both states and stakeholders. for years they've prevented businesses from hiring employees and studying economic growth and the national small business association was just released and found that more than half the smal small businesses held n hiring because they don't do with thwhatthe rules are going . can you -- you mentioned several times but can you talk more about the impact that you've seen in oklahoma and the experience that you've had? >> we have had similar challenges in the program. that section is quite a bit different than other provisions and it gives adoption to plans
to increase or improve visibility. it says by the year 2064 we should have metrical visibility in key areas across the country. oklahoma actually in 2010 under a different administration the e governothegovernor and attorneyl submitted a state of limitation plan that beat the deadline by decades but despite the fact that they rejected that plan and force the federal plan on the state costing consumers quite a bit of money one thing that i would add we talk about the cooperation of the federalism in the importance of the partnership. i talk about that and you talk about that. if you talk about president bush, president clinton and president george w. bush, those could find plans in the clean air act.
this administration issued 56. so it showed an attitude of trying to go towards the state's role in air quality. >> you and other stakeholders for the u.s. and whatever, your goal is not to do away with regulation. your goal is to make it such so that the epa follow the regulatory authority, is that correct? >> in the example where the plan of oklahoma was rejected, we satisfy the statutory mandate that was under the program. we reached the national visibility a couple decades ahead of schedule. the methodology that was used to be simply disagreed with it and used the authority to displace the plan costing consumers of the state hundreds of millions
of dollars in utility costs. >> one of the things we have seen also in the last eight years is tremendous mission on the part of the epa where they've gotten into areas where they don't have the expertise or the expertise to be the best part in regards to coming out with some of the things they've done where they lack the jurisdiction and haven't been in the past. can we count on you to work with other agencies to take their expertise into careful consideration as we come out with the rules and regulations? it is something that occurs and should occur in a very collaborative way. so yes it is important that the epa conducts its business to work with other agencies to ensure it is doing all it can
but in the framework established by congress. >> does it feel like it is the ultimate decider when they sometimes do not have the expertise of the other agencies? >> thank you mr. chairman. >> senator merkley. >> mr. pruitt are you familiar with this piece of medical equipment? >> yes, an asthma inhaler. >> how many have asthma? it's about one out of 12 americans. it's a pretty significant health problem across the country. i know that i've been fortunate enough not but some that have had asthma attacks feel like they are suffocating and sometimes they go into a crisis.
people go into crisis with asthma and sometimes die from it, so it is a terrifying condition. the epa in october of 2015 strength and the air quality standards for ground-level. they strengthened it to 70 parts per billion. they argued that it was an attainable standard that would save three to $6 billion then in addition of course improve the quality of life by diminishing the amount of asthma attacks and deaths. you launched a lawsuit against the standard. was the basis the cost-benefit analysis that he didn't follow the process? >> as you know under the program it couldn't be considered and criteria pollutant. >> and what was the challenge? >> the need to ratchet down
75 billion. as you know, the 75 parts per billion had already been operation for years. when 40% is in the non- obtain meant for the pollutants, transfers should be focused on how to meet the level already in statute. >> it is based on the tenet of the standard. >> i will submit a list for the record. >> the key to this is by implementing that it would save annually 230,000 on estimate of course asthma attacks among children, 160,000 in a tremendous number of workdays,
i think increasingly it is opposed to focusing resources to get the obtain it in as a very important with the epa. that is a very -- none of the standards are obtained and that is the point to be worked out over time. the course of laying out the vision and having folks work towards that vision. it's fighting for the industry trying to damage the health of the constituents and americans across the country.
valuing the profits of companies over the health of our citizens is in character the issue and that is what these hearings are all about. to me that is a character issue valuing profits over people's health. by the nutritional chamber of commerce with the potential impact of the proposed regulations on low income groups and minorities the report goes from 2015 to say that epa regulations including its regulation on carbon dioxide emissions would result in the year 2020 nearly 20,000 black jobs would be lasted more than 300,000 hispanic jobs would be lost.
here we go again on round number two. i'm happy that we have an opportunity questioning with you. nebraska much like oklahoma is a rural state. the neighbor can be located miles into sometimes hours away. the job is directly tied to the production agriculture under this administration farmers and ranchers felt especially targeted by the epa. for example in 2011 and 2012, epa region number seven conducted surveillance and flyovers.
this was concerning to me given that many livestock producers in nebraska also living to raise their families on the properties. not only were these producers bought informed before hand, but the epa has already delegated the authority to carry out the clean water act in nebraska to the state department of equally. what would you do to ensure that the epa sticks to the core missions and furthermore, how would you work with the regulated community including agriculture to build trust among the constituencies that have been the subject of tactics by the epa that we have now? >> one is public participation and full participation to ensure the voices are heard and the epa conducts its activities particularly, and i think perhaps what you are referring
to in the last several years, so i would work to build a collaborative relationship in the states as i've indicated i thinthink the department of equy is a valuable partner that we need to restore the confidence in the partnership at the epa and listen to the community concerns in addressing and responding to the environmental issues. >> and one of the exit interviews, she listed it as her regret. i think it is an understatement in this case. it's diametrically opposed that they can be good stewards of the land and water and environment. and instead, it seemed that the administration's epa wanted to
regulate and wanted to prevent. the community is looking forward to a new leadership with the epa and working with you. i've heard statements from the agriculture officials and groups i would like inserted into the record. >> and if i may, i would close by quoting a few of those. the secretary of agriculture said to protect the environment with respect towards landowners, taxpayers, municipalities, businesses and congress. but it's nice to hear, sir. the environment is not opposing the terms but rather they are complementary.
leading into the food and fiber production while improving the environment in which it is accomplished. again, i'm happy to look forward to that relationship being established again so that all parts of our society here in this country can participate and receive the recognition that we are good stewards of the land. if confirmed, what would be your relationship in the community and are you going to enforce the current law and will you respect the limits we have on those? >> the theme i would highlight again as we need to reject the paradigm that if you've are anti-energy i think we as a country have demonstrated we made great progress in curbing the air quality and waters and we can grow an economy and also
protect and we need to restore the proper balance and commitment to both to do our jobs. >> as i said earlier, every member of the committee believes in clean air, clean water. we want an environment that is respected in a responsible manner. thank you. >> senator cardin. >> i want to try to get your understanding. i heard you say you wanted to see the regulations and the law is predictable. there is a certainty of the subject to regulation by the federal government. do you believe that this clarity should be sent by the statute or
should it be set by regulations from the epa? >> i think it is a great question you are right the definition in the clean water act says the navigable waters are large in the united states. that does provide a great deal of clarity to those that administer the walls. perhaps there is a time and place for the congressional response to what this body means when it's as navigable waters or waters of the united states. >> the congress for whatever reason has not been able to respond.
i don't want to go through all the details but tell me where do you think we should regulate, you already said more than is navigable so how do you do it? >> to challenge up until now with respect to the current rule involves the air case where justice scalia talked about the counterbalance in massachusetts the pa fire this step is taken for the endangerment finding that dealt with the mobile sources linked over to the program and transformed the statute and it was unconstitutional. i think the same thing is going on in the current rule.
when you are classifying a water of the united states, that is something that -- >> there's a certain exceptions that try to deal with that. you obviously didn't think that those were clear enough. >> the clarifications were not sufficient. i would agree with you i believe clarity around this definition, the jurisdiction is essential to get it right and to address. as i indicated earlier, the supreme court has taken up a matter from last friday that's more jurisdictional or not. the response by congress to provide clarity perhaps it is a very important step to take.
>> it's the specifics that should be in the rule that would be different than the proposed rule. >> i understand that. when you get your philosophy as to where the waters would be drawn in to take exception to the regulatory efforts. cracking is an interesting area because there's very few federal regulations. my states could be subject to fracking and there could be the
pollution of water. particularly with the deep oil drilling into the cavities that it may cause an cause and stabin your state i know there were a lot of earthquakes that have been talked about how they were motivated in the activities were not. it protected the environment. >> i'm glad you mentioned distasteful because we have been regulating it since the late 1940s or 50s. it's not a new process and in many states pa states they beene at regulating for a number of decades with response to this issue that you're talking about.
they've taken a very aggressive approach. i show the commissioners commission that's who has jurisdiction in this matter, and they've taken meaningful steps to declare off-limits certain activities to try to see if it will help reduce the number of earthquakes happening in oklahoma, and it has helped. >> i have two unanimous consent requests. i believe and perhaps i'm overly sensitive to this that the integrity has been put into question with the accusations of contributions to the campaign. let's keep in mind that it is a huge industry in oklahoma and there are things where the middle income people will say yes we are.
but we need to have on the record there are some things going on that shouldn't be in this affects the democrats and not the republicans. he said he was going to put $100 million into the campaigns for individuals talking about the global warming and what he expected. in 2016, he didn't do that, 75 million of his own money he was putting in $86 million of his own money. this does reflect the names of people at the dais and i'm good to ask unanimous consent -. >> the money that you are referring to were fully
disclosed? >> on the last question to concern earthquakes and would concerned earthquakes would like to make this part of the record the oklahoma commission has focused on this this is what we are concerned with. they clamp down on it and you are right. they actually reduced the earthquakes by 31% and so we are doing in the state of oklahoma something that is complemented about.
we want to make sure that it doesn't just get stopped for the republicans and run for us. i was going to go to copenhagen which i did but during that time i asked the administrator of the epa the job you are going to have and i said i had that feeling once once i leave towny would come up with an endangerment finding. she smiled so i could tell that it was true.
it has to be based on science. to tell me the science that you are going to use for this and she said iabc c. dot panel on climate change. as luck would have it, right after that is when climate gate came and it was disclosed that the individual scientists braved the numbers and came up with such an outrageous lie in terms of what causes global warming and all that and i will read a couple of them here. it is to suppose that men of science surprising given to me. it was overpowering into the uk telegraph, it's the worst scientific scandal of our
generation. nobody talks about that. but that's the science they are talking about and i believe that is a part of this record. the epa and the highway traffic safety administration issued an updated fuel economy standard that was the result of a compromise that is between the obama administration and california. part of this revealed a regulation in 2018 before, their words not mine, before the but e standards were put in place. however the obama administration broke the deal by prematurely issuing new regulations. the decision was made unexpectedly and well over a year before the epa said they would make the determination.
the shortened time frame and processes concerning. so i do ask unanimous consent that the previous timeline for the expected action on the midterm review "the record. it was the midterm review and the study that was completed this past november 30 and issued the findings within 14 days. i'm not sure that happens in the velocity of the 14 days but the merits review and i would review that, yes.
both of these would be confirmed and you are working to address the impacts of the decision on the repeal jurors and consumers. >> yes we worked on that issue, absolutely. >> very good, thank you. the achievements in the opening statement you said as attorney general you confronted with an important water quality about the high phosphorus levels. the agreement with arkansas to reduce the pollution is the result from poultry growers and i'm quoting you directly it was
occurring as a result are you familiar with this? >> the discharge from arkansas as well. >> that is an important point. i would like to ask questions about this. i dug into this and did some research. this moment when you intervened it starts in the supreme court decision back in 1992 arkansas versus oklahoma would imagine that you are familiar with this decision between the two state that held that arkansas must comply with water quality standards adopted by the downriver states and are approved by the epa. >> i'm familiar with the litigation. >> after july, 2002 i 2002 is ad .037 water quality standard for phosphorus and importantly they
gave a decade phase in period before the required. then in 2003, the predecessor negotiated the agreement with arkansas as i read calle callede state conduc for that joint pris and actions. i would like to enter that for the record. >> to give more teeth to this, this goes to the municipalities increasing the limits from the discharges and by 2003 agreement also read through oklahoma will reevaluate the .037 criteria for the total phosphorus in the rivers by 2012. and then this is a big part with the mandates of the supreme court the epa gave its approval to oklahoma .073 phosphorus standard. this was critical because now oklahoma had a water quality stand approved by the epa that
was enforceable against states like arkansas. now let's fast-forward to april, 2012, the resources board reviewed the best scientific information available, it reevaluated and reaffirmed the plaintiff 073 phosphorus standard. i want to put in an executive summary of the review. then on june 30, 2012, going back to the supreme court's decision and the actions in the phase in period was completed with a .037 that became what was required by the state. so just to recap all of this because it's a lot, 20 years, oklahoma is approved 0.3 phosphorus standards have just
been reaffirmed by the water resources board and then the ten year compliance period had expired so when you said you entered into a second agreement with arkansas that in your words was an agreement to clean up the river that would reduce pollution, and this is the question i have sincerely, i read that agreement and it was stunning to see that it didn't take any steps to reduce pollution but actually only proposes another unnecessary study and attempts to suspend compliance that was two decades in the making with the 0.073 standard. for yet another three years of pollution. isn't it true that is what the agreement of? >> there was no enforcement of the standard taking place on arkansas side of the border.
the reason you refer to the memorandum of understanding and i have a second statement of principles that expired in 2012 and that is what presented my office the opportunity to go to arkansas to ensure that standards would be enforced in the perspective on that side of the border. there was no enforcement authority taking place on the phosphorus level by the epa and oklahoma have it as you indicated it wasn't being enforced. >> i don't have the seniority or the stature or the grandchildren of senator inhofe, so i can't go over my time but i will say in my next round i will go back into this because the documents don't seem consistent and i would like in my next round of questioning to go deeper into this historic settlement. >> thank you, senator. i was introduced for the record
an article that appeared in the tulsa world this past january 12, 2017 going way beyond the 20 years of the panel, but 33 years served as the agency administrator of the oklahoma senior rivers committee until june of 2016. his statement is i have found through it has always done right by the scenic rivers. he has for the first time ever got in the state of arkansas which happens to have parts of the river originating in a flowing through the states to agree to oklahoma is scenic river's phosphorus standard and incredible environmental accomplishment, the effect of which cannot be understated. >> thank you mr. chairman.
attorney general, in august of 2016, the epa inspector general found that the epa failed to follow through with its commitment to update the 2010 lifecycle analysis for corn ethanol and has also failed to perform its legally required comprehensive study on the environmental effects of the renewable fuel standards. the information on the lifecycle emissions is inaccurate and it's outdated. today's best available shows ethanol int and gasoline can significantly reduce greenhouse gases. however, the epa failed to update its own science with the most recent that is available and continues to rely on the outdated and inaccurate science when setting national policy regulatory policies. what are your thoughts on relying outdated and inaccurate science to the federal regulatory policy? >> i think it is the obligation of the epa taking steps to
ensure it has the most up-to-date objectives and scientific data possible. >> let me follow up a little bit. the current process for considering the scientific information underpinning major regulations i believe is flawed and unbalanced. the scientific advisory boar bos to provide scientific advice to the epa administrator and congress, but there's a significant lack of geographical diversity in the state and local and tribal representation. can you explain to us what your views are and what you envision as the role of agency science at the epa? >> i think it's important to have that geographical representation and there is some conflict of interest with
regards to the advisory board that need to be addressed as well. also, the advisory committee. >> i have a chart that shows the makeup of the charter. up to 54 members, the majority of them come from east or west coast states. i also have a chart that shows the number of states that have government representatives. how would you broaden the scope to make certain the states and the entities are represented? the one on the left shows the lack of diversity and the one on the right actually shows we have a grand total of two states with representation for the states and local units of government on the boards. >> if confirmed it is an issue i've indicated and we talk about it is important to ensure that
there is confidence as the science is driving the rulemaking it is tethered to the rules adopted by the epa said this needs to be evaluated and discussed and to ensure it occurs at the epa. >> would you commit to make it an effort to see that it reflects the geographic diversity as well as recognizing the important role that local and regional governments have in determining or participating in the boards and commissions? >> if confirme confirmed i woulk forward to working with you on that issue. >> whether you are working on behalf of industries or the folks from oklahoma, the role as administrator with clean air, water and so forth as the attorney general you represent the interest of your states
economy and environment but just because you're pro- economic develop it and development growth doesn't mean that you have to be anti-environment. preserving the environment and the economy i don't believe are mutually exclusive. i don't think you have to choose between the two. how would you balance economic growth with making certain that we have clean air and clean water act clacks >> part of that is in the statute that the epa is supposed to conduct. i know sometimes rulemaking is seen as something that isn't typically important or something notorious but the reason the congress has said that you take the notice of the proposed rule is because it is needed to make sure all the voices are heard anand that there is an informed decision that regulators are making before they finalize the rule because the impact it has on the economy and the
environment. so it is something we should take seriously and do so consistent in the framework outlined by congress so all the voices are heard that you are referring to in the rulemaking process. >> thank you very much. senator markey clacks to get to >> debate could >> earlier today, you said the epa has an important role in regulating because of the 2007 landmark supreme court ruling in massachusetts versus the epa the epa administrators for both president bush and obama made that decision that it poses a danger to america otherwise known as the endangerment finding. will you promise to keep on the books the scientific findings carbon pollution poses as a danger to the american public health and welfare?
>> first, director of the epa the supreme court said they had to make a decision. to determine whether co2 posed a risk and as you indicated in 2009, they did so. that is the law of the land. there is an obligation to do his or her job in fulfilling the endangerment finding from 2009. >> so you will keep the finding on the book's? >> if it is there and needs to be respected. there is nothing i know that would cause a review at this point. >> massachusetts versus epa made it possible for states like california and massachusetts to set high standards for the fuel economy vehicles using their authority under the clean air act. this is a powerful tool for the states to reduce emissions and address global warming. as a direct result of the clean air act combine with my 2007
fuel economy law, the administration reached a historic agreement in the auto industry's to increase fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. the standards are projected to reduce dependence by more than 2 million barrels a day and prevent 6 billion tons of carbon pollution and save consumers more than 1. 1.72 in dollars ate gas pump because their cars will be so much more efficient. those standards are also unleashing a tesla evolution of clean energy vehicles all across the country. a 10,000 people are going to be unemployed in nevada in this technology area. you said you want states to play a larger role in the environmental regulation. in that testimony before the house science committee, you wrote the epa was never intended
to be the nations from fine environmental regulator. the states were to have regulatory primacy. but earlier today, you wouldn't commit to maintaining california and massachusetts and other states ability to be regulatory bells as the leaders of the effort to protect their own states to do what is best for global warming in their own states. so i'm going to ask again will you support the statutory right of states to do more to reduce dependence on foreign oil and global warming pollution, save money at the gas pumps and create tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands? spinning the answer would be yes but in application to the waiver that was discussed earlier that his a process i can't prejudge what would occur. as you know the previous
administrators either granted. i do respect and to believe the states have an important role. we have acknowledged that with respect to the chesapeake bay situation as an example so i will look at that issue to make sure that it's respected but also is consistent in the framework that you outlined. >> do you support the law that says they have a right? >> it's something that the administrator has an obligation to do. >> do you support the current greenhouse gas standards? >> that is what would be evaluated and i think that it is difficult and we shouldn't prejudge the outcome. >> so you are questionin were qe koran. you don't think they are -- >> it is something that is granted on an annual basis and the administrator would be responsible for making that decision. >> you said you were going to review it. and when you say review, i hear
undue the rights of the states and i think to a certain extent it is troublesome because obviously what we heard all day is how much use for the states rights when it comes to these issues but now when it comes to the right of california, massachusetts and other states, to be able to reduce carbon pollution, you're saying that you are going to review that so from the oklahoma perspective into the oil and gas industry you say they have a right to do what they want to do in the state of oklahoma but when it comes to massachusetts or california or the question of those states wanting to increase
their protection for the environment and protect from carbon pollution, you say you were going to review and i think that the history of the agency in granting reviews have been necessary to massachusetts, california and others to improve the environment are still valid. the science hasn't changed, the clean energy technologies haven't changed, the danger to the public from environmental protectioexposure hasn't changeo from our perspective, we are careful of the review and what it would result in. from my perspective i think it is going to lead to you on doing that and be able to provide that protection. >> thank you senator.
i'm going to introduce for the record a report from the energy assistant directors association. these are the state officials that oversee the financial assistance programs for people to heat their homes and desist when energy prices go up, higher energy prices resulted 24% of recipients to go without food for at least a day and 37% go without medical or dental care. 19% had someone in their home become sick because the home schooled with increased energy costs. >> again, attorney general, thank you for being here today. i would like to go back to something a colleague mentioned earlier today and that is the point of obligation. the proposal to change the point of obligation under is an example of a regulatory change that would destabilize the
policy environment is adopted and what's interesting with the point of obligation, we have two sides that normally oppose each other that have come together so both biofuel producers and the american petroleum institute opposed the change and i would like to submit a letter for the record of shoving me in opposition to the point of obligation if we could have that entered into the record. i would like to revisit this if you can as administrator will you oppose changes to the point of obligation? >> as i indicated with my meeting and in response earlier there is a comment in the process now at the epa about the point of obligation i think judging the outcome of the process at this poin point isn't wise. i can say to you as i said in the office, any steps i would take with respect to any issues
with the rent program to the point of obligation, all of these issues we discussed some of the job is to make sure the statute is upheld and the vitality as designed by congress dating back to 2005 any steps the administrator takes needs to be done in a way to further the objectives of congress and that statute and not undermine. >> i appreciate you being objective and i'm sure the senator and i do look forward to continuing to educate you on those issues. so thank you very much. i would like to show a chart of the state of iowa, and i would like to go back to some of the senator's comments about who should define what the expanded definition of what the waters of the u.s. is so this is a chart of the state of iowa and as you can see in the expanded definition as provided by the
better already made are troubling the epa told the public that they will not regulate puddles. however there already regulating public -- puddles claiming a paddle and a gravel parking lot is a degraded wetland also told farmers not to read dog being regulated because ordinary farming activity has a statutory exemption we've learned the corps of engineers in the department of justice have decide for that plowing is not an ordinary far been activity so explain that for to my grandfather and father whose activities in farming include plowing. according to the obama administration any plowing that pushes so we'll is not
exempt from farming activity because the top can dry out. according to the brief the top now serves as a small mountain range. right there. nl provide conditions that are not conducive to growth and development of wetlands plant species. this is a picture of those small mountain ranges from the government expert report. mr. pruitt will you commit if confirmed the epa will work with the doj to make sure federal agency stopped trying to regulate ordinary farming practices and quick. >> yes senator was. >> thank you for the very concise answer.
>> i want to come back to this question again and i played second base as well and this is a hanging curveball you can knock this out of the park will you commit to reverse the current interpretation that available infrastructure should the met the requirements given that runs counter to a congressional intel will. >> the will take any steps. >> will you commit to opposing any attempts to move the point of obligation from those farmers their producers and manufacturers away on in towards defenders because that is counter to a congressional attempts.
>> there is an open and comment period on that very issue and if confirmed i would need to respond to those comments as public record it would be not wise to digest at a time that outcome but i can tell you not to undermine that but the comment period has nothing to do with intent with those with corn producers so regardless of what the open comment period says you could well prove that a way is that the comment period?
that the administrators process into deal with that issue before but this a job to force the program to preferred added is upheld to prejudge that comment period is something i should not do it this point only after being confirmed. >> so you from our saying that he would be open to moving the point of obligation away from the corn and soybean producers? this if that is the result? >> times saying any actions
taken to jeopardize endangered as intended by congress i would not take that is different from prejudging the outcome of that matter spirit the intent of congress is to keep the application with the producer spirit that is something i am not aware of. >> i am very concerned and will follow-up in the future but go to say if drinking water. i sat on the oversight committee in the house and i was flabbergasted in response to my colleague and if you believe any safe levels of lead you can consume you said senator that is not something i don't know about looking at the scientific research you are after come that plan
administrator you have not looked into the issue of lead in the drinking water supply? especially with the aftermath of planted serious under par. to any names ring a bell to you quick. >> epa should have acted more expeditiously and did not. there is indication there was concerns and the epa bears his aunt's ability. as to the midwest region we
do have issues with let and kills berger illinois you give them the ability to act proactively with the state is not doing its job. >> the answer is yes. the epa has authority to respond to those situations like describe. >> that is good news they did not do that in the case of flint michigan. >>. >> and state wildlife conservation department said attorney general pruitt has been a really good partner and ally to make sure to have adequate protections emplace who previously
suisse state secretary of the entire but he is never hope put us in a position we've ever had to protect the waters of the oklahoma. >> senator. >> i was the congress may and in the district of was elected in a special election this has been buying going on tenures from that time it seemed. worked on this every week but what happened but the epa said the standard was which by 2013 had phosphorus
. arkansas worked very hard to change the treatment plants in the area with the fastest growing in the country. and there was a dramatic improvement but to mention that arkansas never agree to any of that but the first national river is in arkansas so in good faith in 2010 war in 2005 the attorney-general of oklahoma city you can correct me but
it was all put in place the federal judge has never ruled so it was open. fast forward, so that standard is appropriate piled they are run through sued each other again. and attorney general pruitt and mcdaniel democrat in bistate said let's not waste a ton of money with lawyers such use the science to prove year also they chose a neutral site at the university with the next water department you could did a study in came back said point '03 seven is the standard room. it was a tremendous effort
and a very difficult situation. i wanna put in iraq heard from the former attorney general began killed that outlines this and was very complimentary of the attorney-general. >> without objection. >> i will quote one the the final paragraphs these efforts to mischaracterized the work is a staunch defender science and policy i saw firsthand how mr. pruitt could bridge political divides to reach the outcome as positive and historic to be more involved
and i wanted to be in it was a heroic effort trying to resolve day difficult situation. >> senator sullivan correct. >> general pruitt i want to focus on frustrations of the american people with the epa and a couple of reasons that it feels it is empowered to regulate every nook and cranny and related to that they seem to have very little respect for rule of law.
that the epa claims the ability to recreate puddles as the state with 65 percent of america's wetlands in alaska we have said the thicket concerns about this. and to help the fishing industry. i could not disagree with senator whitehouse and with the fishing industry like road island. >> although considerably bigger. [laughter] did you please equality afford the record flecks defect know of jeff shin. [laughter] coming from the waters of
alaska that is the most sustainable fishery in the world dino the number one issue is? epa over reach this is the regulation of 200 pages the old and small businessman and woman. this requires a discharge permit to hose off the deck of a ship. think of that if you are getting a fish and fish gets fall onto the deck of your ship and you hose that down putting it back into the water of the ocean you need a permit, a 200 pages. this is the trust between
americans and the epa has eroded because of these issues. if confirmed william work with me and others with this committee to make your these kind of regulations are balancing environmental beats with the jobs that are so important? would you care to comment on the regulation like this? with this issue back into the ocean requiring a permit. pdf. >> there is bipartisan agreement we need to do something about this overreach. >> it is lack of authority. with over 1300 to move those areas in to remediation so
it is just missed priorities. of -- i'll fly half of all of the food of. [laughter] of a size that is a priority that is one of the principal reasons it is a lack of trust and it is not just a republican issue there is a number of examples that is bipartisan. you may have seen with regard to the clean power plant not known as a staunch republican pet epa is attempting to exercise lot making that belongs to the federal courts with the constitutional trifecta and
to that constitution should not be part of the national energy policy. you have been involved in some of these cases and in both of these the courts has stated the rule. why do think the courts have done that and why do think the rule of law has been ignored by the epa that if confirmed to work on the trust of the american people >> perhaps plus cat rule of law that is technical but it affects people in real ways. and that creates the uncertainty for people to
talk about. rule of law is important is important to allocate resources. inflict before this laugh l. clough i i i i i i i i i i i i i i'll let this slide is important about rule of law. [inaudible conversations] and with that five of our so what does that indicate those two rules issued by epa quick. >> never have been given the history hedger's prudence? >> senator? to make i will yield to somebody ahead of me.
>> that is fine i have some time i have not gotten to yet to. for so talk about the mercury rule the finding that it did not consider the cost of the rule. pile find jean m. mccarthy boson a television show with a separate process you are wrong'' she said the majority of the power plants have invested in a path to achieve compliance with the toxic standards so she has already got a result even know what was found by the courts to be illegal day believe the statement shows
respect for the lovelock wife's. >> this is speculation to certain degree predictions are tough critique from ralph the fifth half look at the supreme court largely the reason they acted is what you just addressed before in response to the case that there was comments made so i think rule of law is not academic but it is meaningful to give assurance and allow them to play adnan that is established you can
see have not been in the senate a long time for a rare eye sits but one of my causes with the discovery how the senate works is to be tried to reassert there is a number of ways we could do that without passing huge pieces of legislation. another one that we can pursue is the appropriate to its process that leads have the offer to the to influence decisions made with every gatherer agency and department for. and to develop a relationship with the agency had because members of congress have greater levels of expertise on the subject
matter of their jurisdiction. and has jurisdiction over the traffic safety distraction the epa just last week when four light duty cars and trucks fell loss says to coordinate that effort with nhtsa the agency is still developing its own process for fuel standards, i raise this as an example for a deal to cease destructive fight congress working together to find the issue to ignore the law. the you sure you was it assure me the epa to the best of your ability but
also you could assure me that when directed to cooperate to have the input that the subcommittee has jurisdiction over. so the epa has already done its thing. >> absolutely that enter agency discussion to ensure there is review of action to take place. the food and do think there is an important issue that you raise. and to be speaking in general ways to get substantial authority without providing that framework it is important
for congress to exercise full file flu fluff rough waters a flat off the this up for because the definition because it is so vague and general it creates one uncertainty to major the congress performs to enforce the of laugh for with respect to separation of powers is important. >> day appreciate your reassurance also reflecting on the need for, to do with job better. but for me and my colleagues to be clearer in legislation
the plan, i think it was said that west virginia native state of my friend of west virginia was not defeated. they participated in meetings. the plant in west virginia also kentucky, florida, texas, pennsylvania, nevada, washington, oregon, wyoming and north dakota, colorado illinois and i think nebraska. i wrote a letter to gene mccarthy and you may recall i wrote a letter and posed a series of questions and asked for your responses by january 9 and have yet to the responses.
here's things we were hearing. to ask these questions one of the questions asked are they implementing new clean water rules and indeed that has been happening. so we have to ask is that the case and then two days later i received a response we are implementing the rule and the state court of appeals that was
one of the questions and we also ask the enforcement actions in the new clean water rules and we got in the same debate january 13 as a response. the agency is pursuing any actions to the water rule and will not enforce this rule until the court of appeals stay is lifted. if anything we would modify the act statutory and regulatory exemptions in the response to days later january 13 note the clean water rule makes no changes to normal ranching and exceptions to the other act implementing the regulations. statutory and regulatory should
and the clean water rule goes into effect the statute and regulations remain unchanged it is narrowed and the exceptions are through is both true and the answer is surprisingly they have no application in the statutory regulations for the ports tree that is untrue. untrue. the agencies have taken no steps to reduce the scope of the exemptions and we have not observed the field offices in the way that they interpret the exemptions in fact they've reemphasized publicly that the exemptions are self-employment thing and they are not required to get approval prior to using the exemptions. exemptions. i raise this because sometimes what people assert to be true is on television and sometimes it is on the radio and newspapers. assertions are made and in this
case it's a whole list none of them are true. i would ask for the record to be able to submit for the record the questions that we posed on january 11 and also the responses that we have received. >> 23 seconds remaining. >> i would like to look at the chart if you don't find. >> how many counties do you have an oklahoma? [laughter]
ththe up tame it and there doest need to be great privatization with the epa and officials that the chief entertainment. >> my question was wha why did u do about the counties that had the data from last year, what did you do about it? with respect to the air quality permits and arrested as the department of environmental quality and it was taken to provide general counsel in the agency and the performance of the role. >> if 17 of the states only have three, 17 of them or all three of them i promise you i would do something about it.
priorities and duties for the epa. since this came up earlier it is a concern regulation through litigation. it's to bypass the regulatory requirements placed upon the agencies to engage in a rulemaking to the litigation is something that i think should m. tucker. >> i appreciate that very much at last the cost of regulation is you know the supreme court will overview of the role in 2015 because the epa failed to ignore the fact the cost was $9.6 billion annually and in fact the regularly issued rules over the past eight years or
very costly for the industries and job creators. when they make an evaluation they are much more conservative but they said the clean power plant would be at least five to 8 billion a year into the figures i heard are far greater because it wouldn't be that much difference than the old system be tried in the legislation. the new standards or 1.4 billion. it was 587 a year and about 2011 standards were 1.5. when you hear this all this money is being spent for the compliance cost. what are your thoughts and what do you think should be the role of the cost of the
decision-making? >> the supreme court recognized that factor and i mentioned earlier the case that we were involved in that was an example where oklahoma comes five and satisfied the requirements under the statute and the rule that there were steps making debate could take in adding hundreds of millions of dollars of costs to consumers and the generation of electricity so the cost is important and we need to make sure to consider certain areas of the statute. but in that case, it's an obligation to actually engage in the cost-benefit analysis and debate a record and before it's made it's decision. >> do you think the walls are in the books right now great to analyze the situation? a >> i do, senator.
mostly it is an application issue dipping its job in the statute as provided by congress. >> thank you very much. >> it goes without saying they will have the cost for the industry with the guidelines it should also consider benefits to the public from the clean air, clean water. >> we have been talking about fund raising done by you for the rule of law defense fund during the time when h you were both a board member and the chairman of the rule of law defense fund and the fact we have exactly zero information and the committee about that fund-raising. we also have zero and let me ask unanimous consent for the page.
we also have a meeting agenda from the republican attorneys general association during the time that you were executive committee member of the association meeting at the greenbrier that i posted too late from my friend. the agenda that i would like to put into the record of mentions a private meeting and mentions a private meeting with the southern company.
no statements or reports about what to place in those meetings that are described as private meetings on a sheet that is stamped confidential. i didn't know about the content. >> because you are on the executive committee, that is information that we could get. it's available if there were any minutes or reports or notes taken that we don't have them. there was a democrat association as well.
with some of the really big polluters you've been -- >> there is a conference if i may. the meetings take place. >> let's talk about foia. as i understand it, there is a request to the oklahoma attorney general's office to your office for e-mails between your office and cok cook industries and americans for prosperity is and marie energy into the american petroleum institute and the information i have is the request was filed more than 740 days ago.
more than two years ago that in response to become your office e has conceded that there are 3,000 responsive documents between your office and companies and about in the 740 days it is exactly zero that have been produced. is that an acceptable turnaround? and should we be concerned that it will be before you as the administrator? >> we have the general counsel dedicated to performing the provided responses for the records request we go through
training with officials and know the record of walls. >> given how many have been put putting financial interests before the epa, do you not think that 3,000 e-mails back and forth between you and your office and then are relevant to the potential conflict of interest as an administrator that should be before us as we consider this? >> again th the council has lett a very clear process with respect to covering the entities as we described earlier in the matters of the cases. i will follow the advice is --
>> the problem with that is if you haven't disclosed any of the information, the council would have no idea to even look or what the risks are. you can't say nobody can look at whether i did this but either way, they are going to look at it. it just doesn't add up. >> i would like to point out we had a report card just brought p and i'd lik i would like to inte for the record a letter to each of the five members of congress and the state of oklahoma with their steadfast support for scott pruett saying we are proud of the service and confident he will do a superb job serving the nation and citizens in this role and also as a follow-up, there is dispute about a lawsuit in
who it was filed by. i have a complaint in the case and it was filed may 18, 2011. it says by and through the attorney general scott pruett, so you were the one that filed the suit along with the attorney general, and this will be submitted for the record as well. >> since the ranking member mentioned, i call the attention that way you are successfully be administrator of the epa you will listen to everybody i come to the states most directly affected. he mentioned the associate administrator made the list of what he said so i would like to point out clarifications announced september 30, the day that i will remember picketers it is the birthday of my youngest child and they announced where they would be
going for their listening sessions. they went to boston, they went to new york city, they went to philadelphia, atlanta, denver, kansas, and i wish our senator was here which i looked up as a part of the triplet area, they went to san francisco, washington, d.c., seattle and chicago. my states have lost 10,000 jobs because some of this pays a large part. they then have hopelessness around and in their communities and who then become addicted to
drugs and other opioids. it's just a cascading issue. so, that is might be. last question. i'm sorry for interrupting but with respect to the outreach that was done in conjunction and thclean power plant it shows how from october 16 through 2014 and records nearly 1,000 meetings and consultations and other outreach with stakeholders and shows the proposals included more than 300 meetings with state and local. 350 with stakeholders and 150 discussions in the environmental justice stakeholders and dozens more the list goes on and on.
the agency received 4.3 million comments about all the aspects of the rules more then any in history all across the country. soliciting information through a number of environmental groups oppose a continuous plot on the record of the epa into question of the entire administration's approach for the abilities of the rules so we are going to allow the questioner to continue and come back to you.
the administrator was telling me the only one to go for places that were comfortable she looked at me and said we are going to pittsburgh which is not in west virginia. my question is you said a lot about steve and i agree they should have put all of that is part of why you brought the sut and part of the reasons you've been successful with other attorneys general. >> let's say that you have a state where you are the administrator and you deem the state office of environmental quality board dep which is what it is in west virginia just doesn't measure up. they are not protecting their people's healtpeople so were e law. they are not up to the task and they are leading their people down.
what avenues of correction what you have and do you have and what judgments have to be made for those things to her? >> there are times the states would concentrate and they don't perform the obligations that they have under the clean air act and adopting the implementation plan or as they adopt the implementation plan they don't take into consideration the factors congress put in the statute. in those instances it is very appropriate to use its authority to take over the jurisdiction and ensure air quality and water quality is maintained. >> in many instances it's been the first response as opposed to cooperation.
>> i would ask unanimous consent related to so-calle the so-calle data for senator referred to earlier and that notes the manufactured controversy over e-mails stolen from the university generated a lot of heat and e-mail content "-begin-quotes it doesn't indicate research that is compromised and most importantly, nothing in the content of the e-mails has any impact on the overall understanding of activities and global warming and the reports and claims are inaccurate. >> without objection. >> thank you. i would also like -- >> were you listening when i talked about the various publications these are publications that have made their own evaluations to say
that it's the worst scandal for the generation. that's very extreme. >> we could have an entire day dedicated and it would weigh very heavily on the skills and directions i' i've indicated in support of the information presented by the concerned scientists. we may have to agree to disagr disagree. >> we will let the public decide. >> that's quite a statement is repeated over and over. >> the beauty of the senate is that we get to have our own opinions. i want to suck it for the record in response when i was speaking about this mr. chairman yoo noted a study from the black chamber of commerce is important
to note the organization has been funded by the petroleum institute and by exxon. there is a series of responses on the opposite side of that and the naacp speaks for a broad swath and takes a different stance. i would also like to submit for the record to articles or statements and from a whole group of latino organizations that are very concerned about the nomination. i would liki would've liked to n that puzzled me overtime in the
context of how one evaluates and views the world. if you go to a doctor and they say you have cancer and you better get a second opinion so you go to 100 doctors and they say you have cancer and better act, most people would feel like a few 97 dot said i should act in three said i should take a supplement. maybe i better have the operation. that's the place we are with climate science. the overwhelming majority says yes it is logical you can do it in a laboratory senator whitehouse noted carbon dioxide traps heat and you can do it in a laboratory, you can track the changes in the environment of the concentration of the gas is and you can see the impact on the ground now.
my home state has an impact because the ocean is more acidic than it was before we started burning coal. that is a scary thing when they have trouble it has an economic impact. the pine beetles are thriving because the winter isn't cold enough to tell the kill them sos having a huge impact on rural america. the southern part of the states is the first draft in the last 15 years. it's a huge impact on agricultural committees and communities. they are coming from the snow packs and have been declining in size and raising in temperature and are bad for trout and salmon and that is an impact on the fishing communities of the global warming taking place and being driven by the burning of fossil fuels is having an economic impact on the citizens of my state that depend on timber and fishing and farming.
should the citizens seek to address this problem because we are on the front end of this happeninhappening. ten years ago we talked about the conversations about the assumptions and the models. we don't need them now. we have facts on the ground. the fish are migrating on the atlantic coast. the facts on the ground or realo and have a huge economic impact. shouldn't we take an approach to the urgency of the problem as we see it? >> i think that epa has an obligation to deal with the issue. the massachusetts epa case says co2 is excluded under the clean air act and as suc such that ist
>> >> prof to achieve better outcomes and it is important to do so. >> i do feel you don't understand of gravity of the situation from your response because there are feedback mechanisms with the blue waterflood in the arctic with methane bubbling up and from the upper frost from always previously frozen at the bottom of the ocean that has accelerated global
warming their rate of carbon dioxide emission has doubled at two parts per million for your fleet are on the accelerated curved of human civilization and if we don't get it together we are in deep trouble i would hope and some point the urgency of the situation would be something you could grab ahold of. >> mr. chairman attorney-general pruitt we heard reports of the epa regional office sending company plans information request for the clean air act regarding your operations with no explanation for the icr they are legally obligated to respond to the request we
often hear no follow-up requesting i record that was sent to u.s. companies to route the regents that there was no way to get this information because they did not have it and in 2015 i wrote a letter to the economic information form off this of those standards those are the major regulations and the response which i received took to announcements but i am off the few recipients with 11 back and passes it is included as part of the record today. it was basically nothing short referring me to when internet link direct me to a
web page that generated the questions in the first place that they simply suggested a coolant. not hardly a response that you would expect from a federal agency trying to be responsive for those proposed rules but i found nearly impossible when can't imagine the difficulty of rancher when they are seeking information from the epa as the administrator the role that you are seeking to believe this is adequate weight to communicate with the public and what are your views to be more accessible. >> as the net with many of
you on the committee that was expressed to me a concern about the lack of response by the epa at all. so i do believe that to listen to members of congress with respect to the issues of respective states and that is something i take very seriously. >> the ranking member with regard to franking issues in oklahoma but also be guard to the clean air containment level this seems to reword trying to portray at the time is that you have a different role as the
attorneys general 52 were for its possible off to have profit is deaf 55 off this seems the this laugh the foils the epa officials turf fief off off -- the execution of the duties with the in regard to executing the laws that congress passed. >> i appreciate the question the role is to form the executive policy making rule to carry out those functions and statutes that are much different as my a role as attorney general. in day comply with the air
permits but it is not our responsibility or jurisdiction it goes back to process oftentimes if they act any way that is the lack of confidence if i respect the life of spiralled to stay in my lane if you will to provide counsel for to perform that job to the agency but then allow the agency by law. >> so as the industry eater you will not make the determination yourself you expect that sound science and scientists with that background would be making their recommendations that you would then base your position and? >> yes objective and transparent process.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> briefly hold the clock for a second. wafers abolishes the first time going through a nomination hearing you have been very generous and think it is important that you know that in negative aid appreciate your number of rounds i also do appreciate of referring to your friend wants to have the deep respect and kindness and decency that you represent that i aspire to. with respect to my colleague who is a good man if this was between delaware and new jersey i would be very happy with the agreement that it seems but you were the downstate so i don't understand.
you said earlier in your testimony in regards to this matter when you have a copy of the 2003 agreement? >> i know that you claimed in your testimony earlier quick. >> with a 10 year period to be re-evaluated. >> to clarify its seems there is no expiration it had a re-evaluation period and it was by estate with involvement and it came up with the same .03 standard and i have a blowup of that agreement est. so pop that
oklahoma through the water resources board will propose a rule amendment that rules the date to achieve full compliance if to set forth and then it lists the to codes and if you look at those two codes, what they are in is that is the phosphorus constantly -- concentration cannot exceed that amount by june 30th. so that is the deadline of the two statutes that is what is frustrating to me so you already had this in your agreement so what it is clear that you are doing to me for you take a binding unless law-enforcement it cook for another three years puff research to take place quite.
>> the issue was not whether oklahoma could hit that standard but of arkansas would adopt that standard on the side of the border that was the concern of the oklahoma for the illinois river. >> i will stipulate because i am running out of time. i degree. your the oklahoma attorney general so you turn to the epa with the power of the supreme court to say back off of my corporation. i said that because i pulled butters that literally six days after your agreement they're delighted to say we
have heard by officials to have a comprehensive study of the concentration impact off fifth so layoffs under the agreement kaf tuesday to suspend implementation dates during the agreement and to believe that what you did was give them the power of the supreme court in 20 years of work that the predecessors have done to comply with some of lot. that is what i am struggling with. hugh say you file lawsuits
and it is the adn of federalism and then use which haft to say five? the epa approval of the supreme court decision to say are bound that you are fighting to have industry. >> industry did not think they were down be. i don't know why they did that because as indicated earlier that foster this level -- possibly as level could not be enforced and so
until negotiated and signed that has never occurred in the history of oklahoma. >> it was party to the 2012 scientific investigation bound by the supreme court case by the epa but the agreement extended the period i don't understand how that is historic. >> clicking now what was achieved to be involved in those issues trying to enforce that water quality with those historic results in this matter.
industry was not at all to be on that side of the border. >> and the three-year delay the you bought them and they continued to pollute and this seems to be a theme but to site with those polluters against of environment and public health standards so unless you can show me something different to clean up the river quicker. >> i don't know if few have a question about this agreement and. >> i want to make a quick comment if we could have
agreement that to the first of all, with the water was not polluted at that point arkansas made tremendous improvement over the years with uh discharge and the major communities have grown tremendously during that timeframe to very admirable levels some the question is .037 vs. any other? the pristine river in arkansas native feel that we could do that.
everybody's rates and then to spend another billion dollars for a tiny fraction that anybody agrees will not have an impact of the water quality. pepe industry was happy to have a situation to have a a resolution. >> i don't have any further questions that i will submit for the rector -- record i do want to push back of the comments earlier to go through a series of examples by overreach with the expanded definition of
waters in the united states. and i have no doubt in answering those questions honestly because she was not the one making the statement. and with the corps of engineers and i know this to be true from some of skier website in a basement somewhere. september 2016. with those case studies and that is just one that i opened up to. land owner received the investigation letter with
the authorization and that to open the case against the land owner implemented case by case and with this particular site over the past 15 years to sustain conditions for cattle that he believed was normal the court told the owners that any depth with any potential quota is the discharge and in the absence of a permit to have an unauthorized discharge in violation of the clean water act. this was submitted to this committee last year. this is aviary real impact
slippery shakers stance that if confirmed but this is not made up. and then to go beyond. >> to respond briefly the head of the epa and assistant secretary it was a puerto rico make for of engineers that these assertions that we hear here in what is the truth. >> if i could respond to that to use that letter as a
prop by have not seen the letter from the epa. i asked mccarthy two years ago and invited her to come to i was but she never responded to me or my staff. >> 5q have criticized the obama administration and a number of locations for for:profs buff groups with the tactics into just reiterated that concern many of your plaintiff attorneys general to send of letter urging him to settle the lawsuits and to avoid a the
appearance will you commit to recusing yourself with the ongoing litigation? and that is a project that regulation and litigation is wrong for that congress is establishing a respected across the board in dull would mention one case. >> that this looks like what the attorney general sir doing in this case of the clean power plant. will you recuse yourself to saddling these cases is in negotiation?
>> we experienced an oklahoma into impact the state's. >> argue giving me a yes? >> i will not if confirmed with the epa of mr. peter. >> will you negotiate to reach a settlement as the attorneys general's plaintiffs but. >> it is a belief of mine. >> will you recuse yourself with any involvement in this litigation. >> as i have indicated the career staff said a
particular matter that those will be evaluated. >> but honestly mr. pruitt case of making a case for the clean power plant the of what they are making to a the world to reduce significantly greenhouse gases. want it just goes to you as an individual with the other attorneys general that you will not recuse yourself. that the plaintiff ashley defendant. >> i am sorry to interrupt but i will recuse if directed with the career staff ethics the individuals have been there.
>> but that will be a huge conflict of interest and then to be in the middle of the room. so trump water natural spring water of the label is says pierre n. fresh free of contaminants water the way it was meant to be the trump hotel guest has the luxury to drink the water if they don't trust what comes out of the tap. comedy did not have the same luxury? out many clayton the epa plays the critical role that all americans entry from contaminants and as the
widespread contamination with the low income and minority communities but yet you told the senator earlier today that you did not know if there is any safe level of lead. the scientific experts that there is no safe level of lead exposure will you commit to make environmental justice reform and immediate priority if you are confirmed as the administrator? >> the time is expired. >> i have one final question
the small communities with those communities whether alaska or other parts of the country will literally eat in a third world conditions. i just want to get your commitment. >> but i believe sometimes we don't think water infrastructure. especially if canfor has seat ahead minister. >> thanks to all the members business was conducted today members made submit follow-up questions but this seems that everybody had plenty of opportunity
scheduled for closing the business of generating teen. >> i thought we were going to do one more round quick. >> three rounds is the longest in history the only the time was christie todd whitman 2001 that was three rounds five minutes each in the reason is because the chairman was harry reid. the witness has been here since 10:00 it is now 4:30 p.m. with six and half-hour's by any criteria even when jeanette mccarthy was nominated and i had significant numbers of questions, of barbara boxer ltd. meet at five minutes and two minutes we have more than doubled that amount of time for questioning mr. chairman.
>> i am not saying that you have been unfair but until this very minute idol think it had been clear that there was the three round limit and that we were going until the questions were answered please don't take that as a criticism of your fairness you have been fair to do have a bunch of questions right here that i hoped to ask that i thought was a fourth round. >> submit those written questions by tomorrow. >> i appreciate the way you have conducted the hearing today and them coming back again and again and to have the hearing with one or two
days interested in the outside panel that that is not really that tradition and we will stay as long as people have questions that is almost exactly your words that is hard to argue with some have more questions and i know that i do we are not running out the clock i would just ask you think back to their conversation to have one more round and we will call it a day. >> offered to start the committee meeting earlier today because many of us have commitments and to the evening people from our homes states are here for inauguration activities in behalf commitments for our home states and the idea at starting at 9:00 was projected.
to go right before the third round by said if it is ongoing we should take of break the reset less plot the witness has been sitting there for just about three hours. depending on the wishes of the committee is to say we have done more than we have ever done in the last 17 years for nominees if you have water to questions i will give the witness opportunity to stretch his legs we can stay in combat with a three minute round but people have obligations and commitments that we thought would be completed by now and it does seem for the people that are here now we could, accommodate but to
bring back the entire committee. >> those better here today if you have questions when you're done they are done. >> although we could yield back at any time. >> you could yield to was. [laughter] >> is always an effort by those who are not satisfied to make it continue on and on. think we have all had adequate time. >> we don't have a vote scheduled for today spirit
if that is the case we will just confine it to the record. >> any other suggestions? >> with the confirmation of mccarthy is with then your call to have additional questions submitted for the record for the opportunity for a the witness to answer the questions but relative to any other epa and the minister peter hearing you have been very generous and very fair from that perspective it think that is a fair outcome said that the questions for the record. >> one or two years ago there was a joint session of the house committee the
witness was jean m. mccarthy i arrived four hours into the hearing that i was recognized to ask a question by question was is any question you have not been asked? she said i wished i was asked if i needed a bathroom break. [laughter] but none of the needs one but we can arrange that. we're asking five minutes for us and we are done. >> can you handle that? >> we're wasting a lot of time since a mitt three minutes each and then we will call it you are up in. >>.
>> you have been very generous by a appreciate that the one thing you did not mark for the nominee for his insurance for his family went to mark for the record they are true champions for their indulgence. >> more people vote for me because of my wife and vote for me and i would suggest for you as well. >> the first on your questionnaire delisted the e-mail address with your business e-mail as the .me
address also where if .ok are there others that you use other than those quick. >> i am not sure where that was designated as such. >> are no other addresses. >> we went through the case that you list the environmental cases started with your predecessor as a formula matter you counted the fish and you pay the fees the if you take out the cases of a private
individual and the attorney general conception in the first instance of a private individual flights the case there is virtually nothing left faugh addition to do that if you close the upfront ppa unit as a freestanding unit of and wildlife and that does not even appear for that. but if you are bringing an action. >> it was employed by the previous attorney-general
and is responsible for advice and consent in this agency's. >> to provide lawyers to give advice to agencies be also have the authority put to bring criminal auctions and civil actions finance those authorities that i believe have not got much attention for. the last piece of that that there was a task force for at york predecessor of lead faugh but uh taskforce conducted 142 criminal investigations with 21
misdemeanor counts with $8 million of fines and did you even participate? >> as i have indicated thises who takes that enforcement they are a matter of the record. off faugh at worked diligently firewood referred to the statements faugh. >> i would refer to the statements. >> talk about environmental justice with your personal commitments but for this last point for there is
1.that you dispute from one eyed draw from the fax. so what i have seen est. pattern from your predecessor against those poultry producers you shut down the environmental enforcement i know you do not agree on this but also attempted to suspend the water quality standard behalf of the last word for it to support that constitutional amendment with the right to form to make it more difficult for a the legislature with the local governments to enact
their own environmental laws prevent this kind of support it is clear here you are mostly editorial boards were against you. that says future state and local regulation, as the state has a compelling state interest off that is a standard to meet. so the idea is the pattern even taking the teeth that of the ability of those environmental toxins and you glad this is defeated by the oklahoma voters but with
this important position i worry about whose side he will be on given the fact pattern of this industry of pollution especially if i know billions of animals all over this country i just want you to respond thank you for your indulgence and has been a long day's. >> there has spent confusion about the litigation that my predecessor did bring an action around 2007 against the industry in the northern district of oklahoma. flip-flop and then to be submitted in did is an example of regulation and litigation ahead every
authority to dismiss the case but i did not. it is still pending today awaiting a judge's position i take no action to undermine decades -- that case so with respect to our office asking about the of budget i submitted a response added is attributed to environmental and related activities associated with as well. want to make sure those two items were shared with you. >> but the state question 777 that was of ballot drafting i really was not as
far as the actual vote with those decisions as try to make sure i did not get involved. >> earlier today i mentioned to segment 50 questions to you asking for response by january 9 and i got nine -- zero so you will receive a number of questions for the record and i am anxious to see your responses to those questions but we need your answers and good answers waiting three weeks not to provide anything is unacceptable.
>> i tried to end talk to the chairman i was respecting the protocol of the chair and committed they are answered for a the record as i was directed to do by the chairman. >> i want to clarify can rehab your assurance for those power plants of the clean air act you will not differ to the states? period mercury is something the epa should deal with. >> i came across a'' -- quotation to say threat and the competitive edge with low-cost and reliable electric often ration begins
his day a considerable edge and the question that i would ask for those of us that live in states downwind from oklahoma as you lower your energy cost coming keep in mind what that means for us. i could shutdown my state's economy with the clean air requirements. and eventually came down at the end. we actually have a chart this is a busy church. it moves all over the place
>> and the keyboard joining us today the kimberleys see your lips moving when you spoke. >> you were instructed by the committee by the day you were asked to submit the 52 dancers it is of letter to say the committee does not require nominees to respond to questions in advance of the hearing and they will be responding to the written questions by to maronite. >> is a conversation tough combat bet you will receive a lot of questions including the 50 that i submitted in we need because there will
be quite a few. they're not true or false bay are more complex. >> introducing an article from the economist with of mercury rule in is meant to look more beneficial but casual listener would assume they came from reduced mercury that explained none of death of heart attacks and asthma almost all of the benefits came from reductions of the pollutants that is not the principal target of the mercury rule. thanks to all members of the