review, that basically said, why consider something that you know is too dangerous. so the issue is that the scientists determined that it was too risky. so we need to base our decisions on that science and quit wasting money from the taxpayers. and ultimately, ruining a fishery that so many jobs and so many family wages depend on. >> cnn did some analysis on secretary pruitt's meetings between april and september, they found that pruitt held 100 meetings with representatives of the fossil fuel industry during the time, only five with environmentalists or scientists. does that concern you? >> yes. absolutely. this is not what we expect the head of the environmental protection agency to do. we expect them to try to protect the environment. it is the resource of all people. it is not a special interest for sale sign that should be in the lobby of the epa. >> so what's next?