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