And i think one of the the difficult challenges we see with individuals across the country is the ability the inability to predict or know what is expected of them as far as their obligations under our environmental laws. I really believe, mr. Chairman, that if confirmed as the epa administrator, this public participation, cooperative federalism, rule of law being the focus of how we do business at the epa is center to restoring confidence and certainty in those that are regulated. Clearly the mission of the epa as i indicated in my Opening Statement to protect our natural resources, protect our Water Quality, improving our air, helping protect the health and welfare of our citizens is key to the leadership of the epa. And enforcement is necessary, a vigorous enforcement, ive done that as attorney general in oklahoma, ive taken very constructive steps against those that violated the law, but we have done so, i think, in a decisive and meaningful way. Mr. Chairman, with that in mind. One other question, and then im going to reserve the balance of my time for some interjection and questioning throughout, but there is still a number of environmental problems that i see in the country and in my state, cold war legacy pollution is a serious problem where chemical compounds are left deep in the soil, from our military activity years decades ago. Often not the tools yet available to adequately address this pollution. If confirmed, would you advocate increasing the epas focus on Innovative Technological Solutions to address these and other environmental problems . Yes, mr. Chairman. And this congress, this past congress as you indicated in your statement and as ent and a inhofe recognized with the changes to the law there are priorities this year, new authority, actually been given to the epa administrator to testing on certain chemicals. As i spent time with some of the members on this committee, senator gillibrand is an example mentioned a concern with the water act along with toska so, yes, i believe there are priorities that are key to improving our environment from sercla to toska, and we seek to focus and prioritize those efforts. Thank you. Senator carper. Mr. Pruitt, we dont often have the kind of disruptions in this room and in this building that we are witnessing here today. This is extraordinary. Not unprecedented, but extraordinary. And people might ask why are folks so concerned . I ill tell you why theyre so concerned. March 3rd, detroit, michigan, president elect then candidate trump, donald trump said these words, were going to get rid of the epa and almost every form. Were going to have little tidbits left but were going to take a tremendous amount out. Thats what he said during the republican primary. And what he said after the election, well, november 10th, fox news with chris wallace, he said, Environmental Protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations. Chris wallace asked him whos going to protect the environment. He said, responded by saying well be fine with the environment. Well be fine with the environment. Were concerned we wont be fine with the environment. Sometimes words do matter. And one of the concerns that i have is hes the president , you will be his nominee, you will be his epa administrator. Does all the things he said in the campaign, do they just go away . In you hes put somebody in place who has actually defunded or led to the defunding of the Environmental Protection unit within your own agency. Yet you have joined in a dozen or more lawsuits over the last six years ever since you have been attorney general and going after the epa. Thats why you have the kind of concern you are witnessing here today, not just on that side of the dais but on this side as well. You just took an oath, you raised your hand and took an oath to answer the questions our chairman asked of you and one of them was a question dealing with your willingness to respond to reasonable questions that are asked of you. One of the things i ask of you, i submitted a letter i think you received and shortly after christmas, maybe december 28th, close of business, and in it i asked a lot of questions. I asked you to try to respond by january 9th. You didnt respond to one of them by january 9th. Certainly didnt respond to me, not even one. Todays hearing, i just asked my staff, have you responded to any of those questions in writing that i asked almost three weeks ago, and to my knowledge, no response has yet been received. Thats why we have a concern. Thats why we have a concern. Mercury. Im sorry . Im going to start off by talking about mercury. In 2011, the epa required dirty coal power plants to clear up mercury and air toxic emissions by issuing the mercury and air toxics standards rule. This rule will reduce the mercury and neurotoxins that contaminate our streams and oceans, pollutes our fish and harms our childrens health. As attorney general i believe you have been part of at least 14 legal cases against the epa and at least three of these cases against the epas rules to reduce mercury emissions from power plants. Is that correct . Yes or no . Senator, we have been involved in litigation around is that correct, yes or no . As i indicated, yes, we have been part of litigation. Thank you. Its my understanding at least one of these cases against the mercury rule is still pending. Is that correct, yes or no . I believe so. Yes. Thank you. In the cases against the mercury rule you questioned the epas determination that mercury emissions from power plants are harmful to health and should be regulated. To be clear, have you ever supported a case against the epa that claimed quote, this is a quote, human exposure to methyl mercury resulting from coal fired power plants is dangerous to humans. Yes or no . That is not a yes or no. If i may. Fair enough. This seems to question an epa decision in 2000 in which the agency determined after almost a decade of study that mercury emissions from power plants pose significant hazards to Public Health and must be reduced. Close quote. Would you say the legal cases you have supported in the past directly challenge this agency finding, yes or no . Senator, the challenges we have had as a state yes or no. Along with the other states yes or no. If i may. Hold your fire. Hold your fire. The legal position you have taken on Mercury Health also seems to call in question the 2003 testimony from then epa assistant administrator vair and radiation jeff homestead right where you are sitting today. This is what he said. He said epa is required to regulate mercury because epa determined that 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 on mercury risk seems contrary to the legal arguments you supported in the past. Is that correct, yes or no . I agree with that position that mercury is something that is very dangerous. Thank you very much. Should be regulated. Are you aware the last three administrators have publicly stated the epa is required to regulate mercury from power plants because of health risks, yes or no . I believe mercury should be regulated under section 112. Thank you very much. According to the epa, my time is about to expire, i will hold it there. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator carper. Senator inhofe . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Well, i dont think you had adequate time to answer some of the questions that were asked. Is there anything you would like to add to elaborate . Yes, senator. Thank you. I do want to say to senator carpers concern with respect to the president elects statements throughout the campaign, i believe theres a very Important Role for the Environmental Protection agency. In fact, you and i talked about that in your office. I believe that there are air quality issues and Water Quality issues that cross state line, that the jurisdiction of the epa, its involvement in protecting our air quality and improving our nations waters is extremely important. The epa has served a very valuable role historically. After all, it was republicans who created the epa under executive order in 1970 and this body passed many pieces of legislation since the 1970s to focus upon improving our air and our Water Quality. And we have much to celebrate. Actually, the six criteria pollutants under the Program Since 1980 are down 63 . We have made progress as a country but we have work to do and the epa has a very valuable role in partnering with the states to carry out those steps and improving our air quality and protecting our nations waters. Senator carper, im hopeful that in response to your concern about the role of the epa, i believe its a very valuable role and its something that we should focus on and partner with our states. With respect to mercury, the litigation that you referred to, there was no argument we made from a state perspective that mercury is not a hazardous air pollutant under section 112. Our argument focused upon the cost benefit analysis that the epa failed to do. And the Supreme Court actually agreed. So it was more about the process, again, that the epa was supposed to go through in regulating mercury to provide certainty to the marketplace, not a statement with respect to whether mercury should be regulated or not under section 112. Thank you, senator inhofe. Thank you. Im glad you brought up this thing about the Clean Air Act. The amendments from 1990, i was one of the cosponsors. Its been incredibly successful. You mentioned that we have reduced those pollutants by 53 but what you 63 , but what you didnt add was that is in spite of the fact we had 153 increase in our economic activity. Thats a major thing. In my introduction, i mentioned this thing that you did that no one can figure out how you did it, involved a 100year dispute between not just state of oklahoma and the city of Oklahoma City and the chickasaws. You want to share with us how you did that . Well they tried for 100 years. You came in and did it in less than 100 days. Less than eight months into my administration as attorney general, we were sued as a state by the chickasaw nation with respect to water in 17 counties in southeast oklahoma. Many of you, if you know anything about water litigation, it generally takes decades to resolve water litigation. We were able to go from august of 2011 until 2016 and negotiate an historic water rights agreement with those two nations to provide certainty that those that are regulated, to provide a voice to the tribes with respect to water allocation and Water Quality and the state has maintained its position as the arbiter of how those permits are allocated as well. It was a partnership. It was the way things ought to work when litigation occurs. Sitting across the table from individuals and working together to try to solve the problem. We were able to achieve that in record time. Im very proud of what we did as a state and as the chickasaw and choctaw nation together. Thats good. I think also you got they will all in one room, didnt you . Yes, sir. That works. You have been criticized and some of the people talking about your environmental record. I would like to be sure that people are aware of a number of people, i have some here i will submit for the record but ed feit is Vice President of Scenic Rivers and Water Quality of the grda. This is a person who has really been at the forefront of our Scenic Rivers program. He praises you, saying i found general pruitt has always done right by our Scenic Rivers. He has done everything constructive he told me he would do. The same thing comes from the North Carolina department of environmental quality. Donald vandervart wrote pruitt is committed to clean air and clean water and to restoring the epa to its original mission of enforcing the environmental laws written by congress. J. D. Strong, head of the Water Resources board, he said attorney general pruitt, he goes on and praises you. I would like to know why it is you have become such a hero of the scenic river people. Well, senator, as you know, oklahoma has endured many decades of dispute with respect to phosphorous levels in the river. In fact, theres been litigation thats been part of that dispute for some time. There was actually a memorandum of understanding that arkansas and oklahoma entered into around 20022003 and that memorandum expired during my time as attorney general. There were many in government at the time that said we should wait on the epa to come in and address the issue. I chose a different path. I actually reached out to my democrat colleague, dustin mcdaniel, attorney general of the state of arkansas, and we were able to negotiate an agreement that had phosphorous levels set at. 037 enforced on both sides of the border for the first time in history. Mr. Feit is head of the Scenic Rivers commission. Hes been center on this issue for a number of years. I think his good word relates to the work we did in my Office Working with mcdaniel to achieve that good outcome. My time has expired but i would like to enter into the record at this point in the record the statement by the environmental deq that i referred to. Without objection. Senator whitehouse . Thank you, chairman. Welcome to the committee, mr. Pruitt, as we discussed when you and i met, the oceans off of our ocean state are warming due to fossil fuel driven climate change. It is crashing our fisheries like lobster and winter flounder and making earning a living harder for our fishermen. I see nothing in your career to give those fishermen any confidence that you will care one bit for their wellbeing and not just the wellbeing of the fossil fuel industry. In a process that you could replicate in an Oklahoma High School science lab, excess Carbon Dioxide from fossil fuel emissions is turning our seas more acid. Rhode island shell fisherman and shell fish growers are concerned and my colleague senator merkleys state have already had oyster spat wiped out for businesses by acidified waters. I see nothing in your career that you would care at all about our rhode island shell fishermen. In rhode island we have bad air days and because of epas work, they are fewer and fewer. A bad air day is a day when people driving into work hear on the radio that ozone from out of state smokestacks has made the air in rhode island dangerous and that infants and the elderly and people with breathing difficulties should stay home on an otherwise beautiful day. Because those smokestacks are out of state, we need epa to protect us and i see nothing in your record that would give a mom taking her child to the hospital for an asthma attack any comfort that you would take the slightest interest in her and your passion for devolving power down to states doesnt help us, because our state regulators cant do anything about any of those problems. They all come from out of state sources. In this respect we are very like delaware. One of the things i would like to ask you about here is the connection between you and some of these fossil fuel companies. This is these are some of the companies that have supported you. These are some of the political organizations that you have raised money for. You have raised money for them for attorney general, correct . Yes, sir. I have a Campaign Committee for that. Yes. Devon energy, koch industries, exxonmobil have all maxed out to that account. Im not aware if they maxed out or not, senator. But im sure they have given to that committee. Oklahoma strong pac is your leadership pac . It was. Similarly, they gave money. They maxed out to that organization as well . Im not sure about that, senator. Okay. They contributed to it . Im even unsure about that as well. I havent looked at that. You closed your super pac, liberty 2. 0, but that took fossil fuel contributions as well, correct . That particular entity has been closed. Yes. Now, you helped raise money for the Republican AttorneyGenerals Association while you were a member of its executive committee. They received 530,000 from koch industries, 350,000 from marie energy, 160,000 from exxonmobil and 125,000 from devon energy, the Company Whose letter you transposed on to your letterhead and sent as an Oklahoma Attorney general document. Did you solicit in your role at the Republican AttorneyGenerals Association any of that funding . Im unable to confirm if they gave those numbers, senator, those amounts. Did you solicit funding from them in your role at the Republican Attorney i attended fundraising events as an attorney general along with other attorneys general with respect to raga. Did you solicit . Did you ask them for money . As i indicated, i attended fundraising events thats different. Attending fundraising is one thing. Asking them is my question. Did you ask for money . Specifically you would have to ask about certain entities. I dont know those are the entities. I did not ask of koch or what were the other ones . Murray energy, exxonmobil, devon energy . I have not asked them for money. On behalf of raga. Then we have, you said to the chairman that there is nothing that might place you in a conflict of interest that you have not disclosed. Yet you founded the rule of Law Defense Fund which is a dark money operation that supports the Republican AttorneyGenerals Association and you have not disclosed any of your solicitations for that entity, nor have you disclosed what money was raised pursuant to those solicitations. This is an organization that appears to have a Million Dollar a year budget. So very substantial funds have been solicited. I believe you were the chairman. Will you disclose your role in soliciting money and in receiving money for the rule of Law Defense Fund pursuant to your solicitation . Senator, point of clarification. I actually did not start nor initiate the rule of Law Defense Fund. You led it . I have been an officer of that organization. Okay. There is an executive staff, fundraisers that actually carry out the functions of that organization. There are many attorneys general that serve on that board. Its not a decision of one. Its a decision of those that have been powered to make those decisions. You havent told us anything about that. You havent told us who you asked money from, you havent told us what they gave, if you asked them. Its a complete black hole into which at least 1 million goes and based on your record of fundraising it appears that a great deal of your fundraising comes from these organizations who are in the Energy Sector and devoted to fighting climate change. Some of whom i have actually sued as well, senator. Name one you have sued up there. Exxonmobil. Before heading to the senator, there are two articles i will introduce into the record. One from the wall street journal in september headline, Hillary Clinton raises more than donald trump from oil industry. The second article that i will be introducing for the record is from politico from december 27th by elena shorr who quotes brian rogers, quote, this is a partisan fishing expedition by six liberal democrats who combined have taken more than 1. 2 million from far left Environmentalist Group dead set against any reforms to an out of control epa. Senator capito . Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, attorney general pruitt, for throwing your hat in the ring to be willing to serve. I would like to quote the Ranking Member when he says its hard work because it is. The epa is hard work. One of the things you said really struck me. I believe the rule of law does matter and im heartened by your passion for that. The Regulatory Overreach of the epa has contributed to economic devastation in my state of West Virginia and my region. Data from the mine safety and Health Administration shows that 60,000 coal jobs have been lost between 2011 and 2016. Thousands of these are in West Virginia. We are in desperate situation in our state right now because of this. We had a field hearing in beckley, West Virginia where our wvu economist john deskins said that the coal industry downturn had resulted in six of our southern West Virginia counties being in a great depression. For the past eight years, the epa has given no indication at all that it cares about the Economic Impact of its policies, even though congress has said very clearly in the Clean Air Act and other environmental statutes that we expect jobs and economic factors to be taken into account. Thats part of the law. In october, a federal court held that the epa had failed to evaluate the job impacts of the epa Clean Air Act as required by 321a of that act. And ordered the epa to submit a schedule for conducting these economic the required jobs analysis. Incredibly, the epa told the court it would take two years, this was just this past, just in the last several weeks, it would take two years just to come up with a plan on how to do the analysis which in my view, if thats part of the law that epa is supposed to be following, they should already have the protocols set up to do an effective and accurate job analysis. So the court responded like this. This response is wholly inefficient, unacceptable and unnecessary. It evidences the continued hostility on the part of the epa to the acceptance of the mission established by congress. So i would like to ask you to commit to me to ensure that the epa will follow the law it is charged with implementing and do those ongoing evaluation of job losses and economic shifts due to the requirements of the act as required by the law. Senator, as you indicated, i really believe that its important that rule of law is adhered to because it inspires confidence in those that are regulated. I think oftentimes those that are regulated dont know whats expected of them, they look at a statute, see the requirements of the statute, then those that are regulating act in a way thats not consistent with that framework. So they dont know whats expected of them and that causes uncertainty and i think paralysis to a certain degree. So rule of law is something that we should take seriously. Its been at the heart of the litigation that we initiated as a state. A lot of times these cases as we were talking earlier with senator carper, theres a policy or political kind of attention thats drawn to it but really its about process and rule of law and making sure that the framework that this body, congress, has established is respected and enforced. So i appreciate your comments. Well, in looking for the balance, we need to have at least a correct analysis of what the implication of the economic implications are of regulations. Its so important and critically important that we enforce our environmental laws and to keep our air clean and get it cleaner and protect our waters. In january of 2014, a storage tank in charleston, West Virginia was corrupted and went into the river, it was right by the water flow of the major water source in my community. 300,000 people had to do without water for several weeks. It caused a lot of angst economically to Small Businesses. Imagine a restaurant not being able to use water or you cant wash your clothes. You couldnt do anything with the water. But also, i share this concern, concern about the health and the longrange implications of whats happened. Several people, multiple individuals and Freedom Industries have pled guilty to environmental crimes in federal court which im very pleased about. So lets talk about tosca. Because i was able to support a provision that would say that if you are storing in close proximity to Drinking Water, you have to take that into consideration when you are reviewing potentially hazardous chemicals. Can we count on you to work with this committee to make sure this bipartisan tosca reform bill is fully implemented and efficiently and fully . Absolutely, senator. In fact, i would commend the work of this committee with senator inhofes leadership and passing that update to the tosca legislation. For the first time in history, as you know, the epa has the ability to order testing to address chemicals that are going to be entered into the stream of commerce and thats a very big substantive change that exists. There are many deadlines. I would also add, excuse me just a minute because im running out of time, in tosca we actually expanded the epas reach. So when youre asked if, you know, youre wanting to get rid of the epa or it doesnt have a value, i voted to expand that reach of epa to make sure that i have clean water and if a spill happens in a Community Around this country, whats happened in flint, michigan, doesnt have the farreaching implications that it does. Thank you very much. Thank you, senator. Senator cardin. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Welcome to the committee. Thank you for your willingness to serve our country. I want to talk about the Chesapeake Bay program. We talked about that in my office. I explained to you and i will do it very quickly. This is a program that was developed at the state level with the states that are in the watershed including delaware, with my colleague senator carper. Its a state that the locals have determined how its best to reach their pollution targets in order to help preserve the Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the northern hemisphere. It is critically important. It is complicated. It doesnt flush itself as many bodies of water do. It has a reduction of oyster crops. So many problems. All the stake holders have gotten together, worked out a plan. The federal government is part of that plan. Its enforced through the tmdl program. And it has been agreed to by the local governments. It was challenged, the tmdls, including you joined that lawsuit. The Supreme Court refused to overturn the court of appeals supporting the use of the tmdls. If you are confirmed, will you support the federal role in the Chesapeake Bay program as envisioned by the partners and stake holders enforcing the tmdls if necessary . Yes, senator. As i indicated in our office, at the time that we had together, i really commend the six states that joined together to address the Chesapeake Bay and to try to set levels for both point source and nonpoint source type of discharge into the Chesapeake Bay. There were some concerns about the precedent, the role that epa was playing initially, but through that litigation, the epa has acknowledged their role is more informational and there was concern in oklahoma about the Mississippi River basin and the precedent was set in that matter. Thats what spawned our litigation. But i really want to emphasize to you, that process represents what should occur for states to join together and enter into an agreement to address Water Quality issues and involve the epa to serve the role its supposed to serve is something that should be commended and celebrated. And as it relates to enforcing that tmdl, i can commit to you that in fact i will do so. Part of the federal Governments Partnership is to provide resources. There are several programs that fund initiatives within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, probably the largest is the state involving funds dealing with wiest water. Will you support the federal Governments Partnership through funding these programs that are critically important to make the advancements in the Chesapeake Bay watershed . Yes, senator. I believe that the grant making role of the epa as we talked about in your office is very important to states across this country, whether its the revolving funds or the wifia portions of our statutes but grant making in general is very important. I will commit to you in that regard that i would do so with respect to the Chesapeake Bay. I want to continue on clean water for one moment. We have had significant problems with Safe Drinking Water and clean water. Let me ask you a preliminary question. Do you believe there is any safe level of lead that can be taken into the human body, particularly a young person . Senator, thats something i have not reviewed, nor know about. I would be very concerned about any level of lead going into the Drinking Water or obviously human consumption. But i have not looked at the Scientific Research on that. The clean water act provides for federal guidance as to acceptable clean water, its enforced by the states so my question to you in regards to clean water is what steps will you take to make sure that our children are safe . We saw in flint, michigan a tragedy occur. Where do you think the federal government needs to strengthen its regulatory roles to make sure that our children are safe from lead . I think with flint, michigan its an example of not delay in response by the epa. There should have been more done on Corrosion Control programs with the flint, michigan system. As you know, under the clean water act and the Safe Drinking Water act, if theres an emergency situation, the epa can enter an emergency order to address those kinds of concerns. I think there should have been a more fast response, a more Rapid Response to flint, michigan. I think with respect to Water Quality, it is infrastructure. Water infrastructure is important. And as you indicated, the states play a very vital role in that process and there needs to be more cooperation between the epa and the states to ensure Water Quality so i understand, you have filed and participated in several lawsuits against the epas involvement saying the locals should have the responsibility. If you are confirmed, will you support federal enforcement, particularly in multistate issues, where the only way we can get enforcement is at the federal level . I believe that is a vital role of the epa. As i indicated in your office, with air quality, Water Quality, issues that cross state line, there is an enforcement mechanism that is important. And would seek to do so if confirmed as epa administrator. Thank you. Thank you, senator cardin. Senator fisher . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Pruitt, for being here today but also for accepting the nomination. It is a service and a sacrifice, not just for you but for your family as well to step forward to serve this country. So thank you, sir, for being willing to do that. For your testimony, i do thank you. I would like to first of all let you know that nebraskans have been really affected by the epa in many instances and i will give you some examples of that. Nebraskas public power utilities are grappling with how they could ever comply with the epas carbon Emission Reduction mandates. The city of omaha is struggling with the agencys expensive cso mandate and Drinking Water affordability. Farmers are waiting on new Crop Technology products that are stuck in a broken regulatory process. Our biofuel investors and producers are desperate for certainty under the rfs. Home builders, transportation stake holders and local county officials are concerned about the jurisdictional expansion to control our states Water Resources. Communities and Small Business owners fear that the epas ozone mandate will stunt potential Economic Development and growth in our state. As a result of the activist role the epa has played for the last eight years, families are concerned about the futures of their livelihood. We all want clean air and clean water. That is one point i know each and every person here agrees on. But with the epas tremendous impact on americans lives, each and every day, it is important that the agency be open, transparent and answerable for its actions. Given these concerns along with the many others that have been and will continue to be discussed today, what steps will you take as the epa administrator to provide relief for American Families that are faced truly with an onslaught of epa rules . Senator, you mentioned open, transparent rule making. There are concerns that have been expressed recently with respect to regulation through litigation where groups initiate litigation against the epa, the United States government, and set environmental policy through something called a sue and settle process. This body as well as the u. S. House have looked at those kinds of issues. When we talk about open transparency, theres a reason why the administrative procedures act exists. It is intended to provide notice to those that are going to be impacted with rules, to give them an opportunity to offer comment and to inform the regulators on the impact of those rules, and then its the obligation of the regulator to take those things into consideration and finalizing rules. Otherwise they act in an arbitrary and capricious way. So its very important that that process be adhered to to give voice to all americans in balancing the environmental objectives we have but also the economic harm that results, and the Supreme Court has spoken about that rather consistently of late. I would seek to lead the epa in such a way to ensure that openness and transparency. You know a couple weeks ago, we had i felt a very good conversation about our shared vision for the epa to bring common sense and accountability back to that agency. I think thats going to go a long way in restoring confidence in the agency by the american people. One issue we did discuss was the renewable fuel standard and its importance to my home state of nebraska. We are the largest Ethanol Producer west of the missouri river. Our neighbors to the east, senator ernsts home state, they do lead the nation in ethanol production. Honoring the volume requirements and timelines that are critical from an investment point of view and also from a planning perspective, i think this is especially relevant, especially during the current farm crisis that we are seeing and the negative impact on people in agriculture all across this nation. In our meeting, you did express your commitment to me to honor the law and you echoed president elect trumps support for the statute itself and a strong rvo. For the record, can you please once again express your commitment to uphold the congressional intent of the rfs . Yes, senator. You said it well. To honor the intent and the expression of the removal of fuel standard statute is very important. Its not the job of the administrator of the epa to do anything other than administer the program according to the intent of congress. I commit to you to do so. And i would say this. The waivers that routinely are offered by the administrator, recently another waiver was offered, it should be used judiciously. Theres a reason why congress put in that statute those statutory objectives. The market has changed since 2005 and the Waiver Authority provided by this body is important but the Waiver Authority should be used judiciously and the act should be complied with and enforced consistent with the will of congress. Thank you, sir. I would ask that you also tell us publicly what you told us that you will honor the timelines on the volume levels that are mandated by congress. Yes. Yes, senator. Thank you, senator. Senator merkley . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Over a number of years, information started pouring in to epa that the estimate of the amount of fugitive methane escaping in gas and oil drilling had been deeply underestimated. In 2011, the epa put out its best estimates based on the information that was being presented and this is relevant because methane is a Global Warming gas, more important than co2. Gas companies didnt like this because well, it presented a vision of natural gas being more damaging environmentally than folks had previously understood. Devon energy is one of the groups that sought to cast doubt on this scientific information and they came to you to be their spokesperson. They asked will you be our mouthpiece in casting doubt and send a letter we have drafted to the epa, and you sent that letter. And i just want to ask first, are you aware that methane is approximately 30 times more potent than Carbon Dioxide as a Global Warming gas . I am, senator. Thank you. The impact thats the answer. Yes. Thank you. Its a yes no question. On a 1 to 10 scale, how concerned are you about the impacts of fugitive methane in driving Global Warming . Methane as you indicated 1 to 10 scale. Highly, 10, very concerned or 1, not so concerned . The quantities of methane in the atmosphere compared to co2 is less but its far more potent. Are you concerned . Im asking about your level of concern. Highly concerned . Im concerned. Thank you. Do you acknowledge sending this letter to the epa in 2011 . Thats a letter on my letterhead sent to the epa, yes. With respect to the you acknowledge that 97 of the words in that letter came directly from devon energy . I have not looked at the percentage the statement thats been analyzed many times is that all of the 1,016 words except for 37 words were written directly by devon energy. Senator, that was a step taken as attorney general representing the interests of our state. Over 25 of yes. I didnt ask that question. I was just asking if you copied the letter virtually word for word. You have acknowledged that yes, its in the record. People can count it as correct. All right. So a Public Office is about serving the public. There is a public concern over the impact of methane on Global Warming. There is Scientific Research showing that its far more devastating than anticipated and far more is leaking but you used your office as a direct extension of an oil Company Rather than a direct extension of the interests of the Public Health of the people of oklahoma. Do you acknowledge that you presented a private oil companys position rather than a position developed by the people of oklahoma . Senator, with respect, i disagree. The efforts i took as attorney general were representing the interests of the state of oklahoma. Earlier you said there was concern no, excuse me. Im asking the questions. You said earlier you listen to everyone. In drafting this letter you took an oil companys position and then without consulting people who had diverse views about the impact, you sent it off. How can you present that as representing the people of oklahoma when you simply only consulted an oil company to push its own point of view for its private profit