Skip to main content

About your Search

20090604
20171023
DATE
2017 7
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
obama administration senior epa officials sued the epa with 12 lawsuits at least in the time george w. bush was in his second term in that it included gina mccarthy, stephen owens and others. they were petitions and plaintiffs filing suits against the epa. and finally an editorial where to point out over the past six years pruitt's legal team has consistently shown deference to the legal expertise and professional said dq. the department of environmental quality. he said i cannot recall an instance where they did not allow us to pursue legal action when deemed necessary. then finally from mike turpin who is the former chairman of the oklahoma democratic party, the job at epa needs to guaranteeing clean air and clean water. pruitt has never compromise those critical components within the actions he has taken. >> thank you mr. chairman. i notice you didn't have the opportunity and the time allotted for senator booker's question. would you care to finish your response with regard to the role the states have in their ability to participate in a suit and whether or not they have standing
in question the 2003 testimony from the epa administrative error in radiation homestead under george w. bush. right where you are seeing today. this is what he said, epa is required to regulate mercury because epa determined mercury emissions from power plants close and otherwise unaddressed significant risk to health and the environment and because controls, options to reduce this risk are available. this statement on mercury risk seems contrary to the legal arguments you supported in the past. is that correct? yes, sir no? >> i agree on the position that mercury is something dangerous. >> thank you very much. >> are you aware that the stated the epa is required to vacate mercury from power plants because of health rest, yes, sir no? >> i believe it should be read later. >> my time is about to expire. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. >> thank you senator. >> thank you mr. chairman. i don't think you had adequate time to answer some of the questions that were asked. his and he would like to add to elaborate? >> yes center and thank you. want to safe to senator carper's concern, t
work together for a number of years on clear sky legislations the the george bush legislation had proposed clear skies and several colleagues of my own, including senator alexander worked on legislation similar. one of the differences between what we proposed and the bush administration proposed was with respect to reducing the emissions of mercury. i don't recall exactly what the bush image ration called for in terms of reduction from power plants and others from mercury but it wasn't very aggressive. i proposed a reduction of 80% over a certain number of years. senator alexander thought folks could do better than 80% and he proposed 90% reduction schedule. we had everyone here at this table, witnesses from utilities and one witness from a trade association representing technology companies that focused on reducing emissions of harm harmful substances into our air and water. every utility representatives that we cannot meet and 80% reduction in mercury. the witness from the trade association representing the industry wanted to reduce mercury and said not only can we meet those ri
that when george w bush was in his second term, cynthia giles, gina mccarthy. they were petitioners and plaintiffs filing suits against the epa and finally i'll submit an editorial where to point out that this back to the tulsa world, over the past six years pruitt's legal team has consistently shown deference to the legal expertis and professionals at deq, the department of environmental quality. this was written by the executive director. i cannot recall an instance where they did not allow us to pursue legal action when deemed necessary. and then finally from mike actuary pin who is the former chairman of the oklahoma democratic party. the job of the epa is guaranteed clean air and clean water. pruitt has never kproes miezed those critical components with any actions he has taken. senator rounds. >> enthusiasm, mr. chairman. >> welcome attorney general pruitt. i notice that you didn't have the opportunity in the time allotted for senator booker's question, would you care to finish your response with regard to the role that the state's have and their ability to either participate in a
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 wo
seems to call into question the 2003 testimony from the epa assistant administrator under george w. bush right were you sitting today. this is what he said. epa is required to regulate mercury because epa determined mercury emissions from power plants pose an otherwise unaddressed significant risk to health and the environment and because controls, options to reduce this risk are available. this statement of mercury risk seems to the legal argument you supported in the pastor is that that correct, yes or no? >> i agree that something that's very dangerous. spirit are you aware the last three ministers at publix did the epa's record to regulate mercury from power plants because of health risk, yes or no? >> i believe mercury should be regulated under section -- >> my time is about to expire. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator carper. senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't think you had adequate time to answer some of the questions that were asked. is anything you'd like to add to elaborate? >> hanky. i do want to say to senator carper is concerned
under george w. bush, right where you were sitting today. this is what he said. "epa is required to regulate mercury because it found that mercury from power plants are significant risks to health and the environment, and controls of this risk are available." this seems contrary to arguments you have had in the past. mr. pruitt: i agree to his position that mercury is something very dangerous. >> thank you very much. is the epa necessary to regulate mercury from power plants? mr. pruitt: i believe mercury must be related. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator inhofe. inhofe: is there anything that you would like to say? yes, i believe there is a very important role of the environmental protection agency, we talked about that in your office. i believe there are issues across state lines, the jurisdiction of the epa, it is extremely important. the epa has played a valuable role, historically. it was republicans that created the epa, and this committee has passed a lot of legislation since 1970. we have a lot to celebrate. made 1980 -- we have progress as a country. role inplays a val
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7