Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Hearing entitled, “Nomination of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency”
January 18, 2017
Questions for the Record for the Honorable E. Scott Pruitt

Senator Booker:
1. For many years I have worked with the EPA on the Passaic River superfund
clean-up project in my home city of Newark. In 2016, the EPA announced an
historic plan to remediate the Passaic River from toxic chemicals, PCBs, and
other contaminants that resulted from the production of Agent Orange. The project
will remove 3.5 million cubic yards of toxic sediment from the lower eight miles of
the Passaic River in New Jersey—the largest environmental dredging project in
the history of the federal Superfund program.
a. If confirmed do you commit to make implementation of the Passaic River
cleanup project a priority?
b. If confirmed do you commit to carrying out the EPA Region II March 3, 2016
“Record of Decision” for the Lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River in a
timely and efficient manner?
I am not familiar with the details of the remedy that has been selected for
the Passaic River Superfund site, but if confirmed, I expect to make clean up
of contaminated sites one of my priorities and will seek input from
Congress and relevant stakeholders before taking action in this matter.
2. As the former Mayor of Newark, I have seen how low-income and minority
communities living in close proximity to the port of Newark are exposed to high
levels of air pollution resulting in serious health problems. Across the nation 13
million people—3.5 million of whom are children—live near major marine ports or
rail yards. What is your plan to address the pressing environmental justice
concerns regarding poor air quality near major seaports and other congested
nodes in our nation’s freight network? I have been a champion of the bipartisan
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Program that helps replace diesel
engines and helps make major sea ports and inland transportation hubs cleaner
and more efficient. If confirmed can you commit to supporting the DERA program?
As I committed to you during the meeting in your office, I understand there
are wide ranging variety of environmental justice issues affecting urban and
rural America. In fact, as you will recall, I've committed to work with your
office and visit impacted areas with you. I am also aware that the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act Program has received bipartisan support from
1

 members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. If confirmed, I
would like to work with members of Congress to best direct resources to
bipartisan initiatives.
3. Climate change is one of the most pressing issues currently facing the planet.
Rising sea levels and extreme weather are currently threatening the safety and
security of my constituents in New Jersey. Lower income and vulnerable
communities are disproportionately impacted by the extreme heat and flooding
events that are becoming more common and more severe. Given the immediate
and increasing threat to my constituents and to people everywhere, what is your
plan to address climate change?
If confirmed, I will work to achieve the objectives of EPA-administered laws
consistent with the process and framework established by Congress. I will
work closely with the states in establishing and implementing regulatory
standards to ensure a meaningful and effective advancement of these
objectives.
4. In 2016, troubling reports of lead contamination in school drinking water in
New Jersey and other areas of the country made clear the urgent need to test
school drinking water and remediate school drinking water infrastructure that is
contaminating the water our children drink.
a. What is your plan to prioritize and expedite the EPA’s efforts to eliminate lead
contamination in school drinking water?
If confirmed, I will fully carry out EPA's authorities, including its authorities
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. I note that in the WIIN Act, Congress
amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to authorize funding for voluntary
school lead testing. If confirmed and if funding is provided, I will carry out
that program.
5. If you are confirmed, how would EPA respond when a state permits pollution to
be discharged into a smaller waterway that leads to contamination of drinking
water supplies in a downstream state?
If confirmed, I would follow the processes set forth in the Clean Water Act
and its implementing regulations.
6. How do you define “environmental justice”? Do you think it’s a serious issue?
I am familiar with the concept of environmental justice. As I testified, the
Administrator plays an important role regarding environmental justice. I
agree that it is important that all Americans be treated equally under the law,
including the environmental laws.

2

 7. Decades of peer-reviewed academic and government research demonstrate
that low-income communities and communities of color disproportionately
experience environmental burdens compared to other populations in the United
States. Do you agree with this conclusion? If not, why?
As I testified at the hearing, I am familiar with the concept of environmental
justice and believe the Administrator plays an important role in this regard.
I agree that it is important that all Americans be treated equally under the
law, including the environmental laws.
8. What do you believe are the legal obligations of EPA to ensure that recipients
of EPA funds comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The obligations of recipients of federal funds are defined by the statutes
and regulations to which you refer. Those statutes and regulations speak
for themselves.
9. There are currently hundreds of unresolved Title VI civil rights complaints
before EPA. Recent reports from EPA’s OIG and independent organizations have
documented EPA’s long-standing failure to enforce Title VI. If confirmed, what will
you do as EPA Administrator to address this?
If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by staff and review any
recommendations by the Office of Inspector General before taking action on
this issue.
10. Indigenous communities are consistently targeted for energy extraction,
nuclear waste, uranium mining and/or oil and natural gas pipelines. How will you
address this moving forward?
If confirmed, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by Congress relating to
protection of indigenous communities.
11. Children living in communities of color and low-income communities have the
highest blood lead levels of all children in the United States, and even some
developing countries. As Administrator, what steps would you take to address
this?
I am concerned about high-blood levels in children and children’s health
generally. As I testified, the Administrator has a significant role regarding
environmental issues. If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed to learn
about EPA's legal authorities and ongoing programs and outstanding
recommendations from the Inspector General, if any, concerning this issue
before taking action.

3

 12. As Administrator will you continue to convene and implement the advice and
recommendations of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, a
federal advisory committee to EPA since 1993?
As I testified, the Administrator plays an important role regarding
environmental justice. I am not personally familiar with the legal authorities
or activities concerning this advisory committee but I would expect, if
confirmed, to be briefed by staff about ongoing programs and activities
before taking any action. If confirmed, I would work to faithfully execute the
laws EPA is responsible for administering, in order to protect human health
and the environment for all Americans. If confirmed, I would expect EPA to
operate in an open and transparent manner, consider the views of
stakeholders as appropriate, act based on sound science, and follow the
laws as established by Congress.
13. As Administrator, will you work to have of EPA’s EJ 2020 Plan fully
implemented?
As I testified, the Administrator plays an important role regarding
environmental justice. I am personally unfamiliar with the details of current
initiatives regarding environmental justice referenced in the question, but I
would expect, if confirmed, to be briefed by staff about ongoing programs
and activities before taking any action.
14. Do you intend to meet minority community members and leaders who have
concerns about an environmental or health issue within your EPA jurisdiction?
Yes, if confirmed.
15. Public participation is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy and a basic
component of good US policy development and enforcement. What are your plans
to maximize inclusion and participation in decision-making processes by
historically marginalized communities of color?
As I testified, the Administrator plays an important role regarding
environmental justice. If confirmed, I would expect EPA to operate in an
open and transparent manner, consider the views of stakeholders as
appropriate, act based on sound science, and follow the laws as established
by Congress, including the Civil Rights Act. If confirmed, I would work to
faithfully execute the laws EPA is responsible for administering, in order to
protect human health and the environment for all Americans.
16.Illegal solid waste dumping sites where hundreds of thousands of pounds of
trash and waste tires harbor disease-carrying vectors and pests such as
mosquitoes, which transmit life threatening diseases like dengue, west Nile and
zika viruses can be found all over the United States. These dumping sites

4

 disproportionally affect low income and minority communities. What will you do to
address this health threat to these communities?
I understand the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act prohibits open
dumping, and under this law states have primary responsibility to regulate
solid waste disposal. If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by staff and
to hear the views of states and other stakeholders before taking any action
consistent with EPA's legal authorities.
17.Monitoring of our coastal waters is critical to ensure the health and safety of its
swimmers and bathers. Many coastal communities, especially low-income and
minority communities have limited free recreational opportunities other than
spending the day at the beach. As EPA administrator will you commit to
continuing EPA's BEACHES program, which provides funding for state water
quality monitoring programs that ensure healthy and safe recreation?
I am not personally familiar with the BEACHES program, but I would expect,
if confirmed, to be briefed by staff about the program. If confirmed, I would
work to faithfully execute the laws EPA is responsible for administering,
including those authorizing the BEACHES program, in order to protect
human health and the environment for all Americans. If confirmed, I would
expect EPA to operate in an open and transparent manner, consider the
views of stakeholders as appropriate, act based on sound science, and
follow the laws as established by Congress.
18.A 2014 study by scientists at Lawrence National Laboratory at Berkeley
reported that an estimated 10 % of chemicals used in fracking fluid are known to
be toxic to humans and aquatic life. Fracking practices commonly are conducted
in fringe low-income and working class communities. Since these toxics are
known to leach into waterways how will you ensure this is prevented?
As was affirmed by Congress in drafting the Lautenberg Act, hazard is only
one characteristic of risk and simply stating a chemical substance has
toxicity does not mean there is exposure. EPA is tasked with carrying out
laws as directed by Congress and if I am confirmed, I will use the authorities
vested in me to protect drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
19. Nationally, 13 percent of the population lives within three miles of a
Superfund site while in New Jersey, 50 percent of the population lives within three
miles—the highest percentage in any state. New Jersey has 113 Superfund sites
on the National Priority List—more than any other state. These sites are the most
heavily contaminated properties in the country, and are the areas that pose the
greatest potential risk to public health and the environment. What is your plan to
strengthen the EPA’s superfund program?

5

 If confirmed, I would expect to prioritize the cleanup of contaminated land. I
would also expect to be briefed by staff and to receive the views of relevant
stakeholders on ways to improve the operation of the Superfund program, if
confirmed. I also understand the Government Accountability Office and the
EPA Inspector General regularly review the operation and activities of the
Superfund program and, if confirmed, I would expect to look to their
recommendations for additional areas for improvement, if confirmed.
20. If confirmed do you commit to working to include substantial funding for
Superfund cleanups in the new administration’s request for a large national
infrastructure package?
If confirmed, I expect to make cleanup of contaminated sites one of my
priorities.
21. In 2003, Arkansas and Oklahoma signed an agreement, the Statement on
Joint Principles to take several measures to reduce phosphorus pollution in the
Illinois River Watershed. One requirement was for Oklahoma to revise its 0.037
mg/L phosphorus criterion by 2012, which it did. Why, instead of supporting the
conclusion of your own state Water Resources Board, did you delay
implementation an additional three years by negotiating another agreement to
conduct yet another study?
The "Statement of Joint Principles and Actions" did not require Oklahoma
to "revise" its criterion, but rather stated that "Oklahoma will reevaluate
Oklahoma’s .037 mg/l criterion for total phosphorus in Oklahoma’s Scenic
Rivers by 2012, based on the best scientific information available at that
time, and with the full, timely inclusion of officials from the State of
Arkansas representing both point and non point source dischargers." As of
2012, which was the final date for the reevaluation to occur, Arkansas
maintained its objection that Oklahoma’s .037 mg/l criterion was
inappropriate, and not based on the best scientific information available at
that time. Rather than protract a now decades long dispute that appeared to
again be headed towards litigation once again, I instead negotiated an
agreement whereby Arkansas agreed to be finally bound to the results of a
new study that would use the best scientific information available at the
time to determine the appropriate criterion. This agreement avoided the
prospect of more litigation, and ultimately resolved the dispute (with
Oklahoma getting the stringent standard that it wanted).
22. In your testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, you said that the 2003 agreement expired during your term? Where
exactly in the agreement do you see any expiration to the agreement?

6

 The "Statement of Joint Principles and Actions" stated that "Oklahoma will
reevaluate Oklahoma’s .037 mg/l criterion for total phosphorus in
Oklahoma’s Scenic Rivers by 2012, based on the best scientific information
available at that time, and with the full, timely inclusion of officials from the
State of Arkansas representing both point and non point source
dischargers." As of 2012, which was the final date for the reevaluation to
occur, Arkansas maintained its objection that the .037 mg/l criterion was
inappropriate, and not based on the best scientific information available at
that time. Therefore, the 2013 Agreement was reached with Arkansas
whereby it agreed to be bound by the results of a new study that would use
the best scientific information available at the time to determine the
appropriate criterion.
23.The 2003 agreement says that, “The state of AR and OK, acting through their
environmental agencies, will reissue the above-specified cities’ NPDES permits
on a normal five (5) year resistance cycle, with the understanding that NPDES
permits for these point source dischargers to the shared Oklahoma Scenic Rivers
Watershed issued in the year 2012 or beyond must include phosphorus limits
stringent enough to meet applicable water quality standards.”
a. Do you agree that the 2003 agreement places obligations on NPDES permitted
facilities in Arkansas beyond 2012?
b. Because Oklahoma reevaluated its criterion in 2012, does this section require
that NPDES permits issued in Arkansas have to be stringent enough to meet
Oklahoma’s .037 mg/L phosphorus water quality standard by 2012 and then
beyond 2012?
c. In your testimony before the Environment and Public Works committee, you
testified that the agreement was “historic” and OK’s phosphorus limit would be
implemented for the first time in history on both sides of the river. Do you agree
that the .037 mg/L phosphorus criterion was enforceable on both sides of the
border under the terms of the 2003 agreement?
Yes. No. No.
24.In the 2013 agreement between Arkansas and Oklahoma, you agreed “not to
institute or maintain administrative enforcement actions, judicial proceedings or
take regulatory actions contrary to this second statement.”
a. Why did you agree to suspend your enforcement authority?
b. How many enforcement actions did you suspend?
c. Do you interpret “judicial proceedings” to include any judgment in the pending
case your predecessor brought against 14 poultry polluters? Was this agreement
intended to suspend enforcement of any judicial resolution of that case?
I did not agree to suspend enforcement authority. The Agreement simply
acknowledged that neither state would take actions that would violate the
terms of the agreement. I do not know if any enforcement proceedings were
suspended, as my office is not the entity that would be involved in such

7

 actions. I do not interpret "judicial proceedings" in that manner, and the
agreement was not so intended.
25. In 2013, you negotiated an agreement with Arkansas that allowed those
municipal dischargers to continue discharging at 1 mg/l phosphorus, agreed to
remove the 2012 deadline for complying with Oklahoma’s phosphorus standard,
and agreed to reopen Oklahoma’s phosphorus water quality standard. Since
Arkansas had already agreed, in 2003, to ensure that its large municipal
dischargers would fully comply with Oklahoma’s phosphorus standard starting in
2012, why did you let them out of that agreement in 2013? Please identify any
provision of your 2013 agreement that requires these dischargers to meet
Oklahoma’s phosphorus standards after February 20, 2016.
a. Since the U.S. EPA approved Oklahoma’s Phosphorus Standard in 2003, what
legal basis do you think Arkansas had to file a lawsuit challenging since the time
for filing a legal challenge had expired? If you do not believe the time for filing a
legal challenge had expired, please explain the basis for your belief.
b. Do you agree that Arkansas is required to ensure that its point source discharge
permits comply with all Oklahoma water quality standards that have been
approved by the U.S. EPA under the case of Arkansas v. Oklahoma, including the
phosphorus standard approved in 2003? Please state the basis for your belief.
c. The Joint Study Committee authorized by your 2013 agreement recommended
a standard different from Oklahoma’s existing phosphorus water quality standard.
Please explain whether this recommended standard will supplant Oklahoma’s
current water quality standard, and why you have state that the study confirmed
Oklahoma’s existing 30-day geometric mean 0.037 mg/l phosphorus standard.
What is your understanding of the impact of excluding samples taken during
conditions where surface runoff is the dominant influence of total flow and stream
ecosystem processes?
The 2013 Agreement did not "let anyone out" of the 2003 Agreement.
Arkansas believed that it had legal recourse to resist a criterion to which it
objected. Without that additional context as to the claims to which you refer,
I am unable to answer your question relating to time bar of Arkansas’
hypothetical claims. With regard to Arkansas's obligations, pursuant to the
2013 Agreement, Arkansas is now obligated to adopt and implement a
stringent phosphorus standard. The study "used a weight of evidence
approach to recommend a six-month average total phosphorus level of not
to exceed 0.035 milligrams per liter based on water samples collected
during critical conditions was necessary[.]" As I've stated, this confirmed
that Oklahoma's 0.037mg/l standard was--despite Arkansas's arguments
that it was unnecessarily stringent--necessary to protect the watershed. I
am not familiar with the "the impact of excluding samples taken during
conditions where surface runoff is the dominant influence of total flow and
stream ecosystem processes," to which you refer, and thus cannot offer an
opinion on that statement.

8

 26. You stated in your EPW Questionnaire that you negotiated an agreement with
Arkansas to reduce phosphorus pollution in the Illinois River watershed that was
occurring as a result of poultry growers. Please explain how the agreement
reduces pollution from poultry growers.
Runoff from poultry farms contribute to increased phosphorous levels in
the Illinois River. The agreement imposed on Arkansas the requirement that
it adopt a stringent phosphorous standard, which will necessarily require
Arkansas to stringently regulate sources of phosphorous, such as poultry
farms, in order to meet that standard.
27. You stated that Oklahoma’s phosphorus standard was not being enforced on
the Arkansas side of the border prior to your 2013 Agreement. Are you aware
that, in April of 2009, the EPA required the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality to ensure that the discharge permit for the Northwest
Arkansas Conservation Authority include an enforceable final effluent limitation for
phosphorus stringent enough to meet Oklahoma’s phosphorus water standard by
June 30, 2012, and that the final NPDES permit for Northwest Arkansas
Conservation Authority issued by Arkansas included that requirement? Given the
fact that Oklahoma’s phosphorus standard was being enforced in Arkansas prior
to your 2013 agreement, please explain the benefit to Oklahoma from entering
into the agreement.
However, upon reviewing it, I note that Arkansas reserved the right to revise
the 0.1 mg/l phosphorus permit limit (“The Department reserves the right to
revise the permit limit of 0.1 mg/l for Total Phosphorus upon submission of
data which indicates that a Total Phosphorus limit other than 0.1 mg/l is
appropriate”). Further, I am aware that Arkansas continued to dispute the
validity of Oklahoma’s t0.037 mg/ limit, a dispute that is now resolved with
Arkansas agreeing that 0.037 mg/l phosphorus standard is appropriate.
That agreement greatly benefits Oklahoma.
28. It appears that the last call or meeting that EPA has on the long delayed
TMDL for the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller watersheds occurred on November
14, 2013. Please explain how your 2013 Agreement is related to the TMDL or
cleanup of Lake Tenkiller. What steps have you taken with the U.S. EPA to
encourage completion of the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller TMDLs and oppose
further delay?
I would certainly encourage the EPA to fulfill any obligations it might have
to complete those TMDLs, but I have not taken any legal actions to force the
EPA to do so.

9

 29. What steps have you taken to implement and enforce the 0.037 mg/L criterion
for phosphorus pollution just approved by the Scenic Rivers Joint Commission in
Oklahoma? What measures has Arkansas agreed to in light of the study results?
I have not personally taken any steps to implement or enforce that water
quality standard, because the authority to do so is vested in Oklahoma's
environmental regulators, such as the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality, and Oklahoma Water Resources Board.
30. In 1992 the US Supreme Court in Arkansas v Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (1992),
resolved a lawsuit between Oklahoma and Arkansas related to water pollution in
the Illinois River and held that upriver states must comply with water quality
standards that are adopted by downriver states and approved by EPA. After that
Supreme Court decision, effective July 1, 2002, Oklahoma adopted a nutrient
criterion for total phosphorous of .037 mg/l for all Oklahoma water bodies
designated as Scenic Rivers, codified at Oklahoma Administrative Code 785:45-519(c)(2). This new water quality standard had a ten year phase in period before
full compliance was required on June 30, 2012. EPA approved Oklahoma’s .037
mg/l phosphorous standard, as codified at Oklahoma Administrative Code 785:455-19(c)(2), on December 29, 2003.
a. Given this history, do you agree that as of July 1, 2012 Oklahoma’s .037 mg/l
phosphorous standard was in effect and was binding on upriver states such as
Arkansas?
b. More specifically, do you agree that as of July 1, 2012 compliance with
Oklahoma’s .037 mg/l phosphorous standard was required for the portion of the
Illinois River in Arkansas?
c. If you do not agree that as of July 1, 2012 compliance with Oklahoma’s .037
mg/l phosphorous standard was required for the portion of the Illinois River in
Arkansas, please explain the legal basis for your disagreement.
Oklahoma water quality standards do not automatically apply to upstream
dischargers in other states. In 1992, in Arkansas v. Oklahoma, a case that
pre-dated Arkansas' authorization to carry out its own Clean Water Act
permitting program, the Supreme Court held that it was in EPA's discretion
to issue a permit for a publicly owned treatment plant in Fayetteville,
Arkansas that required compliance with downstream (Oklahoma) water
quality standards. The Court took no position regarding when the Clean
Water Act compelled such compliance, only that it was reasonable for EPA
to assume that a section 401 water quality certification applied to federally
issued NPDES permits. Please note that section 401 applies only to federal
permits and as such would not apply to an Arkansas permit now that
Arkansas is an authorized state. Under 40 CFR 131.10 state water quality
standards are supposed to ensure "attainment and maintenance"
of standards applicable to downstream states, but EPA is the arbiter of that
when it approves state standards. Under section 402(b) of the Clean Water
Act a state that is downstream of an authorized state gets notice of permits

10

 and the opportunity to file recommendations, but has no veto authority.
Under section 402(d) of the CWA, EPA has the authority to review state
issued permits and impose additional conditions. Interpreting this section,
in International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 493, 490-91 (1987) , the
Supreme Court found that the only law applicable to a point source in an
authorized state is the law of the source state. A downstream state is
subordinate to a source state and its only recourse it to ask EPA to veto or
condition a permit.
31. Please identify any investigations and/or lawsuits the Office of Attorney
General initiated after January 17, 2011 to address groundwater contamination
associated with swine animal feeding operations and any publicly available data in
your possession regarding levels of groundwater contamination at any swine
animal feeding operations, as well as any communications that the Office of
Attorney General has had with the owners or operators of swine animal feeding
operations after January 17, 2011.
The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture regulates Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and swine operations generally under the
Oklahoma Agriculture and Environmental codes. The Oklahoma
Department of Agriculture and the Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General
already had several large swine feeding operations under Consent Decree
or Settlement Agreement by the time I took office in 2011. (Hanor Roberts &
Seaboard Foods, for example) The terms of those Consent Decrees and
Settlement Agreements required the swine operations to make regular
reports to the Department of Agriculture and the Office of the Attorney
General. These reports included monitoring well data, lagoon data and other
terms to be carried out by the operators pursuant to the agreements. My
office has continued to monitor these operations to confirm compliance
with the Consent Decree and Settlement Agreements.

11

 Senator Cardin:
1. Please provide your definition of EPA’s “activist agenda” as stated on your
professional biography on the State of Oklahoma’s official website. Please provide
a list of all environmental laws and regulations that you consider to comprise the
federal agency’s “activist agenda” and how each environmental law or regulation
listed in response to this question meets this definition.
I firmly believe that the EPA has a vital role, but it must do so within the
bounds of its legal authority. The actions undertaken by the Office of
Attorney General have been out of concern that EPA had exceeded its legal
authority in those specific actions, not out of animosity toward the mission
of the Agency or any specific regulation or statute. Regulations that are not
on solid legal foundation and that cannot survive judicial review will not
result in environmental protections.
2. For what purpose other than to handle the State of Oklahoma’s legal
challenges against the EPA did you create the Federalism Unit and defund the
Environmental Protection Unit?
The Federalism Unit within the Attorney General's Office serves to protect
the State of Oklahoma’s sovereign interests in our republican form of
government, with a particular focus on issues related to the vertical and
horizontal separation of powers demanded by our Constitution. It is headed
by the Solicitor General. With regard to the environmental protection unit, it
is misleading to say that it was “defunded.” Consistent with the practice of
every Attorney General save one, I determined that a standalone unit was
operationally inefficient. I opted to combine the Environmental Protection
Unit and the Consumer Protection Unit into a single unit called the “Public
Protection Unit.” The Public Protection Unit continued the work of the
Environmental Protection Unit, and that work continues to this day, headed
by the very same attorney who worked in the Environmental Protection Unit
under the prior Attorney General.
3. Do you intend to create a Federalism Unit within the EPA similar to
Oklahoma’s? Explain why or why not.
My understanding is that the Department of Justice, working in coordination
with the EPA Office of General Counsel, represents EPA in litigation, and
would thus serve to protect such federalism related interests.

12

 4. Would you support budget cuts to the EPA in similar scope (10% or higher) to
those made to Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality appropriations
since FY2009 1?
I am not familiar with Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality’s
budget. I have no first-hand knowledge of EPA’s development of its FY 2018
budget request. If confirmed, I look forward to working with EPA’s budget
staff and program offices and officials with the Office of Management and
Budget on EPA's request. I will work to ensure that the limited resources
appropriated to EPA by Congress are managed wisely in pursuit of that
important mission and in accordance with all applicable legal authorities.
5. Of the lawsuits filed against the EPA in which you participated personally and
substantially as Attorney General for Oklahoma, do you intend to recuse yourself
from decision making regarding litigation in which you represented the State of
Oklahoma as an adversarial party? Do you intend to recuse yourself for the
entirety of each case?
As a lawyer, I am bound by the rules of professional conduct not to “switch
sides” in any litigation in which I represented the State of Oklahoma, unless
my former client gives its informed consent.
6. Do you believe the State of Oklahoma and the EPA should be regarded as the
same or different “clients” for conflicts of interest purposes? Explain why or why
not.
The State of Oklahoma and the federal government are separate sovereign
authorities; representing one does not entail representing the other. In
addition, while the State of Oklahoma has been my client as a lawyer during
my service as Attorney General, if confirmed as EPA Administrator I will not
be acting as a lawyer with clients.
7. The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct,
Rule 1.1, Special Conflicts Of Interest for Former and Current Government
Officers and Employees, Comment 5 discusses the balancing of interests. On the
one hand, where the successive clients are a government agency and another
client, public or private, the risk exists that power or discretion vested in that
agency might be used for the special benefit of the other client. A lawyer should
not be in a position where benefit to the other client might affect performance of
the lawyer’s professional functions on behalf of the government. Also, unfair
advantage could accrue to the other client by reason of access to confidential
government information about the client’s adversary obtainable only through the
lawyer’s government service. In the spirit of Rule 1.11, what previous lawsuits

1

http://okpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016_Budget_Highlights.pdf?997616#page=7&x42044

13

 might affect your performance of the Administrator’s professional functions on
behalf of the EPA?
Because I will follow the guidance of ethics officials and my own
professional responsibilities in determining whether and how to participate
in a particular matter, I do not expect any previous lawsuits to adversely
affect my performance as EPA Administrator if confirmed.
8. On the other hand, the rules governing lawyers presently or formerly employed
by a government agency should not be so restrictive as to inhibit transfer of
employment to and from the government. The government has a legitimate need
to attract qualified lawyers as well as to maintain high ethical standards. Thus a
former government lawyer is disqualified only from particular matters in which the
lawyer participated personally and substantially. The provisions for screening and
waiver in paragraph (b) are necessary to prevent the disqualification rule from
imposing too severe a deterrent against entering public service. The limitation of
disqualification in paragraphs (a)(2) and (d)(2) to matters involving a specific party
or parties, rather than extending disqualification to all substantive issues on which
the lawyer worked, serves a similar function. Please provide a list of federal
lawsuits filed against the EPA in which you participated personally and
substantially as Attorney General for Oklahoma.
As Attorney General of Oklahoma, I have participated personally and
substantially in the following suits against the EPA:
•
EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, No. 12-1182 (U.S.S.C.)
•
Michigan v. EPA, No. 14-46 (U.S.S.C.)
•
Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, Nos. 14-1112, 14-1151 (D.C. Cir.)
•
Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, Nos. 15-1385, 15-1392, 15-1490, 151491 & 15-1494 (D.C. Cir.)
•
Oklahoma v. EPA, Nos.12–9526, 12–9527 (10th Cir.)
•
Oklahoma ex rel. Pruitt v. EPA, No. 16-5038 (10th Cir.).
•
Oklahoma ex rel. Pruitt v. McCarthy, No. 15-cv-369 (N.D. Okla.).
•
Oklahoma v EPA, No, 13-cv-00726 (W.D. Okla.)
•
West Virginia v. EPA, No. 14-1146 (D.C. Cir.)
•
West Virginia v. EPA, No. 16-1264 (D.C. Cir.)
9. Do you accept a screen is appropriate for EPA strategic decisions specific to
those lawsuits in which you represented an adversarial party? Explain why or why
not.
I will consult with relevant ethics officials and review relevant rules of
professional conduct to determine whether a screen is appropriate in a
particular matter.
10.Comment 5 discusses a lawyer who moves between different government
entities. When a lawyer has been employed by one government agency and then
14

 moves to a second government agency, it may be appropriate to treat that second
agency as another client for purposes of this Rule, as when a lawyer is employed
by a city and subsequently is employed by a federal agency. However, because
the conflict of interest is governed by paragraph (d), the latter agency is not
required to screen the lawyer as paragraph (b) requires a law firm to do. The
question of whether two government agencies should be regarded as the same or
different clients for conflict of interest purposes is beyond the scope of these
Rules. Do you believe two government agencies—the State of Oklahoma and the
EPA—should be regarded as the same or different “clients” for conflicts of interest
purposes? Explain why or why not.
As explained above, the State of Oklahoma and the federal government are
separate sovereign authorities. While the State of Oklahoma was my client
as a lawyer, if confirmed as EPA Administrator I will not be acting as a
lawyer with clients.
11.How might the spirit of Rule 1.11’s conflicts of interest provisions apply if those
government entities were adversarial parties to a lawsuit?
If two government entities are adversarial parties to a lawsuit, then under
ABA Model Rule 1.11 a lawyer’s previous representation of one entity in the
litigation will preclude his later representation of the other entity in the same
litigation, unless the former client gives its informed consent. As explained
above, if confirmed as EPA Administrator I will not be acting as a lawyer
with clients.
12.ABA Rule 1.7 Conflict Of Interest: Current Clients provides that a “lawyer shall
not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of
interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if the representation of one client
will be directly adverse to another client; or there is a significant risk that the
representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s
responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal
interest of the lawyer.” In the spirit of Rule 1.7, do you reasonably believe that you
will be able to provide competent and diligent leadership to the EPA, an agency
you “don’t like” and have sued several times? Explain why or why not.
I will provide diligent and competent leadership to the EPA if confirmed as
Administrator. As I explained in my testimony to the Committee, I am a firm
believer in the EPA’s mission to protect the environment and look forward
to the opportunity to lead the agency to help provide our future generations
with a better and healthier environment.
13.Please explain how your litigation position in each case is or is not at odds with
the mission of the EPA, to protect human health protect human health and the
environment—air, water, and land.

15

 The EPA’s mission is defined by the laws passed by Congress granting it
the authority to act. Any action by the EPA that exceeds the authority
granted to it by Congress, by definition, cannot be consistent with the
Agency’s mission. In each case filed against the EPA, in the view of the
State of Oklahoma, the EPA had acted in excess of the authority granted to
it by Congress.
14.Do you accept that EPA, state, local and tribal agencies work together to
ensure compliance with environmental laws passed by Congress, state
legislatures and tribal governments?
I agree it is essential for the federal government, state governments, and
tribal governments to work together to provide the environmental protection
that our laws demand and that the American people deserve. As I explained
in my testimony to the Committee, I strongly support cooperative
federalism. If confirmed, I will make every effort to partner with the EPA’s
counterparts in state, local, and tribal governments to further these goals.
15.In 2005, former Attorney General Drew Edmondson filed a federal lawsuit in
2005 seeking to prohibit the spreading of chicken waste over land in the Illinois
River Basin in northeastern Oklahoma. Companies named in State of Oklahoma
v. Tyson Foods Inc. (No. 4:05-cv-00329) include Tyson Foods Inc., Tyson Poultry
Inc., Tyson Chicken Inc., Cobb-Vantress Inc., Cal-Maine Foods Inc., Cargill Inc.,
Cargill Turkey Production L.L.C., George’s Inc., George’s Farms Inc., Peterson
Farms Inc., Simmons Foods Inc., Cal-Maine Farms Inc. and Willow Brook Foods
Inc. On December 9, 2015, the State of Oklahoma filed brief amici curiae along
with 21 other states in support of the petitioners in American Farm Bureau
Federation v. EPA (No. 15-599). The Tyson Foods defendants did not participate
in the Bay TMDL lawsuit, and the American Farm Bureau was not a party to the
Oklahoma suit. However, Tyson Foods Inc., headquartered in Springdale,
Arkansas—the largest poultry producing company in the world—is a member of
the Arkansas Farm Bureau. Do you accept that the American Farm Bureau, a
national organization, represents the interests of the Arkansas Farm Bureau and
its members, including Tyson Foods? Explain why or why not.
It is my understanding that the American Farm Bureau Federation is a
distinct corporate entity from the Arkansas Farm Bureau, which is a distinct
corporate entity from Tyson Foods. Accordingly, I do not believe one can
ignore corporate form and conflate the American Farm Bureau Federation
with either the Arkansas Farm Bureau or Tyson Foods. I observe that the
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau filed suit against EPA in the challenge to the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL on its own behalf, notwithstanding the fact that
American Farm Bureau Federation also was a plaintiff.
16.In 2013, despite the lack of a verdict in the Tyson Foods case, you added the
State of Oklahoma to the American Farm Bureau/poultry industry backed lawsuit
16

 against the EPA’s efforts to enforce a TMDL to restore water quality in the
Chesapeake Bay. You sided with the American Farm Bureau, the Fertilizer
Institute, the National Chicken Council, the National Pork Producers Council and
other farming interests. The lawsuit claimed EPA was exceeding its authority in
enforcing “total maximum daily load,” or TMDL, standards in Chesapeake Bay,
limitations on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments. In what ways did you balance
the interests of your client, the State of Oklahoma, as Counsel for Amicus Curiae
in American Farm Bureau while Tyson Foods, in which you represented the State
of Oklahoma as Plaintiff, was ongoing?
These are two different lawsuits regarding different parties and different
matters. There also is no issue conflict because the issues raised in the two
lawsuits also are distinct.
17.In 2016, more than six years after arguments concluded in Tyson Foods, there
has been no final ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Gregory K. Frizzell. Do you
find the six-year delay in Tyson Foods to be acceptable or reasonable, and if so,
why?
It would not be appropriate for me as an attorney to comment on the
acceptableness or reasonableness of the actions of a judge before whom
the Office of the Attorney General has a pending case.
18.Please provide a list of all confidential government documents related to the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL to which you would not have access but for your status
as counsel to the State of Oklahoma as amicus curiae in American Farm Bureau.
I am not aware of any such documents. A request for such documents can
be made to the Office of the Attorney General pursuant to the Oklahoma
Open Records Act.
19.If the Supreme Court were to grant certiorari in American Farm Bureau, or a
case like it challenging the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, how would you direct the
EPA as Administrator to rigorously defend its own rule?
Any TMDL should be a cooperative effort. If confirmed as EPA Administrator
and if the litigation challenging the Chesapeake Bay TMDL reached the
Supreme Court during my time in office, I would expect to consult with the
States and other interested stakeholders about the issues raised in such
litigation.
20.In what ways did you balance the interests of your client, the State of
Oklahoma, as Amicus Curiae in American Farm Bureau and as Plaintiff in Tyson
Foods?

17

 These are two different lawsuits regarding different parties and different
matters. As Attorney General of Oklahoma, I represent the interests of the
State of Oklahoma when I seek to ensure that federal law is followed such
that Oklahoma retains its sovereign authority to regulate where federal law
allows such state regulation..
21.Do you accept that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL could still fail to significantly
reduce pollution flowing to the Chesapeake Bay if the EPA steps back from its
role in holding states accountable for their cleanup commitments? Explain why or
why not.
It is my understanding that recent quality data shows that the water quality
of the Chesapeake Bay is improving. Further, it is my understanding that the
United States Geological Survey and other researchers have found that
the time lag between measures taken on the ground and water quality
response can be years, decades or even longer. Accordingly, today's
improvements in water quality are likely the result of measures taken before
the effective date of the Bay TMDL. These measures, as well as state plans
to require treatment plants upgrades that also pre-date the effective date of
the Bay TMDL, will continue to improve water quality. That said, the Bay
TMDL represents a cooperative effort of all states in the watershed and EPA
has a role in overseeing its implementation.
22.The TMDL approach hinges on numeric water quality standards that set a
qualitative number for pollution limits, rather than a qualitative description of how
healthy waters should be. As Administrator, how would you promote effective
numeric standards?
I agree with the Mach 2011 nutrient framework issued by the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Water entitled "Working in Partnership with
States to Address Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution through Use of a
Framework for State Nutrient Reductions," which prioritizes state action to
encourage on the ground activities over establishment of numeric nutrient
limits. According to the State of Florida, based on their experience with the
imposition of federal numeric nutrient limits, controversy over the validity of
a number can actually delay pollutant reduction activities, delaying water
quality improvements.
23.In the Mississippi River watershed, the Obama Administration defended a
lawsuit against the EPA from environmentalists seeking numeric nutrient criteria.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled in favor
of the EPA, finding “Presumably, there is a point in time at which the agency will
have abused its great discretion by refusing to concede that the current approach
[…] is simply not going to work.” But for now, “EPA is entitled to judgment as a

18

 matter of law in its favor.” As Administrator, would you continue to waste
resources on a qualitative, voluntary approach?
I was not involved in the litigation your reference, and am not familiar with
the details of the case.
24.As Administrator, do you intend to make enforcement of the Chesapeake Bay
cleanup plan a priority? How? Do you acknowledge that it will be even more
difficult to make progress without EPA?
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL has been upheld by the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals. If confirmed, I will continue to enforce the law and will continue
EPA's leadership role as a member of the Chesapeake Bay Executive
Council. I agree that progress would be difficult without a collaborative
process.
25.Would you deny the political will in the states of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed to protect the Bay?
I would listen to the views of all interested stakeholders including the
States.
26.In a 2013 speech, you said “There are issues with respect to clean water and
air that cross state lines. There is a role, and I think it’s important for
conservatives, for us to recognize, that though I don’t like the EPA […] I think it’s
not good for us to say that the EPA doesn’t have any role.” How would you
characterize the EPA’s role in mediating cross-state air and water pollution
disputes?
I certainly agree that EPA plays a leadership role in mediating cross-state
air and water pollution disputes.
27.In 1992, the Supreme Court held in Arkansas v. Oklahoma (No. 90-1262), a
case challenging the EPA’s issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit to a publicly owned treatment plant in Fayetteville,
Arkansas for a discharge into a river flowing into Oklahoma, that the Clean Water
Act authorizes the EPA to require that point sources in upstream states not violate
water quality standards in downstream states. 2 Is the EPA interpreting this
Supreme Court precedent correctly? If not, how would you change its
interpretation through NPDES?

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-01/documents/waterpollution-ludwiszewskimemo.pdf
2

19

 Arkansas v. Oklahoma involved an EPA-issued permit because at the time
of the litigation the Fayetteville wastewater treatment plant began operation
Arkansas did not have an approved state permitting program. Oklahoma is
authorized to implement its own NPDES permitting program, in lieu of the
federal program. As such, I am not familiar with how EPA is applying
Arkansas v. Oklahoma when it issues permits in the handful of states
without such approved permitting programs.
28.After the Arkansas decision, you agreed to a three-year delay in 2012 to allow
for an independent study of the science behind the standard. What specific factors
motivated your decision to delay enforcement of Oklahoma’s standard?
The "Second Statement of Joint Principles and Actions" that Oklahoma
entered into with Arkansas in 2012 actually required that "[t]he States,
through the appropriate Parties, will continue to require existing point
source dischargers to the Illinois River Watershed with a design capacity of
greater than 1 MGD to operate under existing National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ("NPDES") permits reflecting an effluent limit for total
phosphorus of not more than I mg/L based upon a 30 day average,
assuming the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not object" and
likewise required that "Parties for both States will continue cooperative
efforts to improve and protect water quality in the Scenic Rivers."
29.Please provide all communications you had had with representatives of
agricultural and other companies regarding water quality litigation between
Arkansas and Oklahoma.
Such communications can be requested from the Oklahoma Office of the
Attorney General through a request made to that office pursuant to the
Oklahoma Open Records Act.
30.Do you commit to fully apply and enforce the Good Neighbor provision if
confirmed as EPA Administrator?
Yes. If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will exercise my authority in this
area consistent with Congress's intent in enacting the Act. Specifically with
respect to Section 110(a)(2)(D) and the "good neighbor" obligations of
Section 110, I intend to engage in a transparent process that will allow
states to have a meaningful opportunity to understand their obligations with
regard to reducing emissions that cause or contribute to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance in other states through the SIP process and
to act consistent with my authority under Section 110(c) if states fail to do
so.
31.What is your understanding of the role of climate change in algal blooms?
20

 EPA identifies the following as causes of harmful algal blooms: sunlight,
slow-moving water, and excess nutrients. For climate change to have a role,
it would first have to have an impact on one of these three causes.
32.Please provide a list of water treatment plants under consent order from the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality during your tenure as Attorney
General. Please identity funding sources other than federal funding that are
available to bring these treatment plants into compliance with the Clean Water
Act.
This question should be directed to the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality, as I have no personal knowledge of such matters.
33.Of the 1,677 public water supplies under the purview of the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality, 19 had recent elevated detections of lead in
March, 2016. Please describe any action you took to address lead contamination
as Attorney General.
As the question indicates, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality as opposed to the Office of Attorney General has primary
responsibility for implementing and enforcing environmental laws in
Oklahoma.
34.When more than 10 percent of tap water samples in a local system contain
lead levels of at least 15 parts per billion, the state steps in to review the water
system’s treatment for corrosive properties and update the sampling schedule as
necessary. How have budget cuts to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality impacted sampling?
I have no personal knowledge of the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality's budget, or how any budget cuts may have impacted
that office.
35.EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) agree that
there is no known safe level of lead in a child’s blood. Lead is harmful to health,
especially for children. Do you accept that there is no safe level of lead in a child’s
blood?
I am concerned about the health of children. I have not myself reviewed the
scientific studies correlating blood lead levels to impacts in children.
However, it is my understanding that neither EPA nor CDC have identified a
"safe" level of exposure, but instead have adopted levels appropriate for
action under their specific statutory authorities.

21

 36.Please provide any information relating to enforcement actions for Lead and
Copper Rule violations undertaken during your tenure as Attorney General for
Oklahoma.
Such enforcement actions would have been undertaken by Oklahoma's
environmental and water regulators, at agencies like the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality or the Oklahoma Water Resources
Board. This question should be directed to those agencies so that can
describe to you the relevant actions taken by the State of Oklahoma.
37.The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires EPA to establish and enforce
standards that public drinking water systems must follow. EPA delegates primary
enforcement responsibility (also called primacy) for public water systems to states
and tribes if they meet certain requirements. In a letter to Oklahoma Secretary of
the Environment Gary Sherrer, EPA Regional Administer Ron Curry said the State
had until June 1, 2013 to fully implement the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts Rules. Please provide all information related to
Oklahoma’s primacy under the Public Water System Supervision Program during
your tenure as Attorney General.
As your question indicates, such matters would be within the purview of
Oklahoma's environmental regulators, not the Office of Attorney of General.
38.Do you concur that persistent drinking water safety problems indicate the need
to strengthen, not weaken, the federal law designed to ensure the safety of
Americans’ drinking water? Explain why or why not.
I believe that persistent drinking water problems largely stem from a failure
to comply with current laws and regulations. If confirmed, I will work to
increase compliance with the law, which will require effective enforcement
and oversight, technical assistance, and infrastructure improvements. It
also may require changes to existing regulations to improve oversight tools
and eliminate ambiguities that lead to compliance issues.
39.At the same time, deteriorated lead paint and elevated levels of leadcontaminated house dust are present in an estimated 24 million U.S. houses,
according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The long-term effects
that lead poisoning can cause include learning disabilities, hyperactivity, impaired
hearing and brain damage. Infants and young children are most susceptible to
lead poisoning. EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP Rule)
requires that firms performing renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb
lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities and pre-schools built before 1978
have their firm certified by EPA (or an EPA authorized State), use certified
renovators who are trained by EPA-approved training providers and follow leadsafe work practices. Do you believe the RRP Rule should be a voluntary
standard? Explain why or why not.

22

 No. Oklahoma is an authorized state. The Oklahoma Lead-Based Paint
Management Act designates the Department of Environmental Quality as
the official agency for implementing the Lead-Based Paint Management
Program.
40.EPA is addressing lead contamination and resulting hazards under these laws
in many ways, including by issuing and enforcing regulations. Do you find this
regulatory authority appropriate for EPA, and not the States? Why or why not.
It is appropriate for EPA to faithfully enforce federal law. With respect to the
RRP rule, it is my understanding that there have been issues with EPA
implementation of the RRP rule in states that are not authorized due to a
delays in certifying firms.
41.Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as well as other
authorities in the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992,
directs EPA to regulate lead-based paint hazards. As Administrator, how would
you implement Title IV of TSCA?
Congress enacted both TSCA Title IV to create a national program to
achieve the national goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards from
housing as expeditiously as possible and TSCA Title V to authorize the
establishment of a state grant program to provide technical assistance on
EPA environmental programs for schools and to implement school
environmental health programs. If confirmed, I will faithfully discharge my
responsibility to protect human health and the environment for all
Americans with the highest possible dedication and commitment in
accordance with the legal authorities established by Congress.
42.The CWA prohibits anyone from discharging pollutants, including lead, through
a point source into a water of the United States unless they have a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. As part of their water
quality standards regulations, states and authorized tribes adopt ambient water
quality criteria with sufficient coverage of parameters, such as lead, and of
adequate stringency to protect the designated uses of their surface waters. What
changes, if any, would you make to the NPDES permit?
I have not contemplated any changes to the NPDES permit program, if
confirmed.
43.Please provide all confidential government information regarding the 2010
consent order with the Making Money Having Fun (MMHF, LLC), a coal
combustion waste mine fill operator in Bokoshe, Oklahoma, that you obtained as
Attorney General.

23

 I did not become Attorney General until January 2011. The Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality has responsibility for administering
and enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma, along with other agencies
like the Water Resources Board and the Corporation Commission. Those
agencies may be able to provide you information about the 2010 consent
order your reference.
44.The EPA finalized the first federal coal ash disposal rules in 2015, but the rules
did not include any direct mechanism to implement or enforce the rules. Now,
Congress has provided the mechanism in S. 612-114th, the WINN Act, which was
passed with bipartisan support. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also
issued a press release stating his approval of several of the bill’s provisions,
including the coal ash language. As you may know, if states create a coal ash
permitting program, or amend their current programs to incorporate federal
standards and get EPA approval, they will be able to implement the rules
themselves. If they do not, the EPA is directed either put into place a federal
permitting system, or have the authority to directly enforce the requirement. Do
you intend to enforce the coal ash language in S. 612-114th, the WINN Act, that
received bipartisan report?
If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by
Congress, including the WIIN Act provisions regarding coal ash.
45.Please provide an explanation of any modification you would make to the coal
ash provision in S. 612-114th, the WINN Act.
I have not had occasion to review in depth this new statutory. Congress,
not the Administrator of EPA, has authority to modify statutory language
such as the coal ash provision in the WIIN Act. I do not at this time have any
opinion whether Congress should modify the statute in question.
46.Kentucky is already in the process of working on regulations governing coal
ash disposal. The state’s proposal would modify the concept of “permit-by-rule,”
and allow utilities to build their own coal ash landfills or ponds without prior
permitting or review by regulators. The utilities could be fined by regulators or
sued by individuals for violations. Energy and Environment Cabinet spokesman
John Mura has said the Cabinet believes this would qualify as a “permitting
program” as required by the WINN Act. As Administrator, would you allow the
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet’s “permit by rule” program to qualify
as a permitting program under the bipartisan WIIN Act? Why or why not?
I am not familiar with how Kentucky regulates coal ash disposal. It would be
inappropriate for me to prejudge an issue that may come before me for
decision if I am confirmed as Administrator. If the issue comes before me, I
will ensure that the issue is fully and fairly considered with input from staff
and in accordance with applicable legal requirements.

24

 47.What is the goal of your lawsuit asking to strike down EPA’s “Waters of the
United States” rule under the CWA? What will the states be empowered to do that
they can’t do with the rule in place? (be specific)
The goal of the lawsuit I brought to advance the State of Oklahoma’s
interest in protecting its regulatory authority is to have the courts vacate the
WOTUS rule. If the WOTUS rule is vacated, we will return the status quo,
and the State of Oklahoma’s sovereign authority to regulate waters within
its border will not be diminished.
48.The brief filed on behalf of states argues that states need to “protect” waters.
Are you aware of the legal concept under the Clean Water Act that provides for
states to be more protective than the Clean Water Act, not less—that the Act sets
a minimum standard of protection and cleanliness?
The state brief filed in the WOTUS case argues that the WOTUS rule fails to
recognize the limits on federal authority that Congress adopted when it
enacted the CWA over forty years ago. Under the Act, Congress "chose to
‘recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of
States . . . to plan the development and use . . . of land and water
resources.’” Solid Waste Agency of N. Cook Cnty. v. U.S. Army Corps of
Eng’rs, 531 U.S. 159, 174 (2001) (“SWANCC”) (quoting 33 U.S.C. § 1251(b)).
As noted in the state brief: ʺThe Rule likewise reaches and even exceeds
the outer bounds of Congress’s constitutional authority. The Rule’s
expansion of federal authority over intrastate waters will “impinge[] o[n] the
States’ traditional and primary power over land and water use,” and
“readjust the federal-state balance.” SWANCC, 531 U.S. at 174.The Rule’s
coverage of intermittent waters, ephemeral waters, and isolated sometimeswet lands “presses the envelope of constitutional validity,” Rapanos, 547
U.S. at 738 (Scalia, J., plurality) (citation omitted), far more than the
challenged agency actions in Rapanos and SWANCC. That is, states have
exclusive, not additional, authority over all land and non-navigable, wholly
intrastate waters.
49.Do you believe that states should be free to allow more pollution or fewer
waters to be protected from pollution and development than described in the
Waters of the United States Rule?
The litigation brought by the states was premised on a concern that EPA
had exceeded its statutory authority as established by Congress.
Additionally, the WOTUS rule is a jurisdictional rule, not a substantive rule
as your question suggests.
25

 50.Are there waters that you believe should not be protected under the Clean
Water Act? What specifically are they? Why do you think that the rule covers
those waters now? Why do you think they should not be protected?
As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, I believe that the Clean
Water Act regulates more than navigable waters. But, it does not regulate all
waters. How much more would best be answered by Congress. Absent
Congressional action, it is the role of EPA to seek to provide clarity on the
scope of federal jurisdiction. What that is has to be determined and
assessed through notice and comment rulemaking. The WOTUS rule
exceeded the authority granted by Congress by allowing federal regulation
of land if rainwater collects on the surface and seeps into the ground or if
rainwater runs over the land as ephemeral flows. It also exceeded CWA
authority by regulating isolated ponds and wetlands. Such non-navigable,
wholly intrastate water should be protected, as appropriate, under state, not
federal, law. For example, isolated bodies of water have not been subject to
federal regulation since the 2001 Supreme Court decision in SWANCC
struck down earlier agency attempts to expand federal jurisdiction beyond
the limits of the Act. The WOTUS rule would reverse that decision and
regulate the same waters that the Supreme Court has already said are
subject to exclusive state regulation.
51.In your lawsuit against the Clean Water Rule you argue against what you
perceive as an undue federal intrusion on local control of decisions about water
quality. You have also argued that cities in towns in Oklahoma should not be able
to control their water quality by issuing local regulations for the activities of oil and
gas companies. How is your stance in favor of local control under the Clean
Water Act consistent with your position against local control when it comes to the
water polluting activities of oil and gas companies? What legal underpinning is
there for that difference?
State concerns regarding the WOTUS rule are based on the limitations on
federal authority under the Clean Water Act. Oklahoma concerns over the
regulation of commercial activities including oil and gas company
operations by local governments are based on the limitations of local
authority under state law and federal law. Respect for the rule of law
underpins both concerns, and both seek to ensure that laws enacted by the
relevant legislatures—Congress on one hand, the Oklahoma Legislature on
the other—are followed.
52.Wetland ecosystems provide significant environmental and economic benefits
to American citizens including water purification, flood and erosion control, and

26

 habitat for wildlife and commercial fish species. In fact, over fifty percent of
commercial fish and shellfish stocks in the Southeastern United States rely on
coastal wetlands. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act protects wetland
ecosystems by regulating the discharge of dredging and fill material. If confirmed,
what is your plan to improve the biological condition of wetlands?
If confirmed, I will take care to faithfully execute all environmental laws
enacted by Congress, including Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
53.As of 2014 Oklahoma had nearly 14,000 miles of rivers and nearly 1,000
square miles of lakes that are so polluted they don't meet the state's water quality
standards. That’s approximately 42% of all the delineated stream miles in
Oklahoma, and almost 1,600 of those were added during your time as Attorney
General. Only 107 miles of rivers in Oklahoma – about a third of one percent –
were classified as meeting Oklahoma’s water quality standards. The other 58%
are classified as having insufficient data to enable the state to say they’re meeting
state standards. As Oklahoma’s Attorney General, what did your office do to
ensure that the companies were complying with the state’s clean water laws?
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma
Water Resources Board have primary responsibility for implementing and
enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma. Such questions should be
directed to those environmental regulators.
54.How many water pollution enforcement actions did your office file, and how
many of those resulted in orders to halt or reduce pollution discharges? Please
provide a comprehensive list.
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma
Water Resources Board have primary responsibility for implementing and
enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma. Those agencies are thus best
situated to provide a comprehensive list of enforcement actions take by the
State of Oklahoma. The Office of Attorney General has on occasion assisted
those environmental regulators by providing legal representation in cases
under the CWA for pollution to groundwater, streams and other waterways.
Other cases included pollution that caused fish kills and CERCLA
Superfund sites that damaged Oklahoma groundwater and or streams.
Those cases are EPA, States of Oklahoma & Texas v Mahard Egg Farm;
EPA, State of Oklahoma v. Doe Run Mining et al.; ODWC v. Kent Feeds;
ODWC v. Southern Towing; State Of Oklahoma, ODWC v Kelco
Manufacturing; and State of Oklahoma & Cherokee Nation v. Sequoyah
Fuels Corp.
55.President Reagan’s EPA adopted the “Stream Buffer Zone” rule to protect
streams, and the Obama administration has replaced that rule with the “Stream
Protection Rule.” Do you think Reagan’s rule was a more straightforward way to

27

 protect streams? Why or why not? What specifically about it was more
“straightforward?”
The stream buffer zone rule and stream protection rule are not EPA rules.
They were issued by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement of the Department of the Interior.
56.The American Society of Civil Engineers states that decrepit, decades-old
municipal wastewater systems are at fault for the discharge of 900 billion gallons
of untreated sewage and wastewater into U.S. waterways each year, enough to
cover New York City under a layer 127 feet deep. According to a New York Times
report, municipal sewer systems are the nation’s biggest violators of the U.S.
Clean Water Act, and more than one-third of them have violated pollution laws at
least once since 2006. This worn-out, faulty infrastructure requires new
investments in order to protect public health and the environment. As the leader
of the Agency in charge of protecting human health and US waterways, how will
you help states and municipalities modernize their wastewater infrastructure?
If confirmed, I will continue support for the Clean Water State Revolving
Loan Funds and the new Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act loan
program. In addition, I would continue to implement EPA's Integrated
Planning Framework to provide municipalities with flexibility to prioritize
actions they take to come into compliance.
57.The American Society of Civil Engineers states that decrepit, decades-old
municipal wastewater systems are at fault for the discharge of 900 billion gallons
of untreated sewage and wastewater into U.S. waterways each year, enough to
cover New York City under a layer 127 feet deep. According to a New York Times
report, municipal sewer systems are the nation’s biggest violators of the U.S.
Clean Water Act, and more than one-third of them have violated pollution laws at
least once since 2006. This worn-out, faulty infrastructure requires new
investments in order to protect public health and the environment. As the leader
of the Agency in charge of protecting human health and US waterways, how will
you help states and municipalities modernize their wastewater infrastructure?
If confirmed, I will continue support for the Clean Water State Revolving
Loan Funds and the new Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act loan
program. In addition, I would continue to implement EPA's Integrated
Planning Framework to provide municipalities with flexibility to prioritize
actions they take to come into compliance.
58.Given the President-elect’s concerns about EPA’s slow and inadequate
response to lead in drinking water problems and the lack of adequate testing,
what specifically would you do to prevent a Flint-like disaster from happening
elsewhere?

28

 If confirmed, I will focus EPA's resources and attention on its core missions,
including ensuring safe drinking water.
59.Would you commit to undertaking stronger EPA oversight and enforcement of
drinking water rules, such as stronger enforcement of the lead and copper rule
that wasn’t enforced in Flint, MI?
Yes.
60.What specific lessons did you draw from the Flint, MI tragedy, regarding EPA’s
proper role in overseeing the States’ administration of delegated federal
programs?
I believe that EPA staff should be encouraged to notify their managers when
they identify issues and managers must take those issues seriously when
brought to their attention. I agree with the assessments of others that the
Flint tragedy was a failure at every level of government, but I am particularly
disturbed that EPA did not take action until long after they became aware of
the elevated lead levels in Flint drinking water.
61.What are your views on when EPA should step in to take enforcement or
emergency action where a state is authorized to administer a program under one
of the federal environmental laws but is failing its duty to protect the public?
If confirmed, I will follow the process outlined in section 1414 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, as recently amended in section 2106 of the WIIN Act, to
notify persons of elevated lead levels in their drinking water and will carry
out the recommendations of the EPA Inspector General in his October 2016
Management Alert to update the guidance on Safe Drinking Water Act
emergency authority and require training on the use of that authority.
62.Did EPA do an adequate job in the instance of the lead crisis in Flint, MI? If
not, what specifically would you do differently?
No. If confirmed and faced with a similar situation, I would inform the state
that EPA will take action if they fail to do so, and use EPA's emergency
authority if the state fails to act.
63.How specifically would you strengthen EPA’s lead and copper rule for drinking
water to ensure, as Mr. Trump suggested, that water is adequately tested and
treated before children are exposed to lead?
It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge the outcome of a matter that
may come before me if confirmed as Administrator. If confirmed I would
request a full briefing by EPA staff on potential revisions consistent with
EPA legal authorities.

29

 64.House Republican leadership said in 2016 that EPA should get new lead-inwater rules proposed as soon as possible, and criticized the agency for being too
slow when it promised to get them out by 2017. By what date would you commit to
get a new rule issued? How would you ensure that final improvements to this rule
are issued and implemented quickly?
If confirmed, I will make issuing revisions to the Safe Drinking Water Act
Lead and Copper Rule a priority. As I am not at the Agency, I do not know
what is the soonest feasible date.
65.An independent advisory group of experts including state regulators and water
industry representatives recommended to EPA that all old lead service lines that
pump water into homes from water mains should be replaced. The water utility
trade associations support this. Do you support that recommendation? In your
view, what would be the best way to pay for these replacements—Congressional
Appropriations, issuance of debt by cities and states, a combination, or other?
Please explain.
It is my understanding that, if properly implemented, corrosion control
treatment of water protects public health from exposure to lead from lead
service lines. EPA's highest priority should be to ensure that this treatment
is being properly employed. Replacement of lead service lines is a long
term goal that municipalities should incorporate into their capital
improvement plans, which are generally implemented through state and
local funds. Federal assistance through the Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds and the new WIFIA program can provide additional assistance.
66.Do you agree that removing lead from gasoline was an important and
successful EPA rulemaking? Why or why not?
I have not evaluated this issue.
67.Lead has no safe level of human exposure, particularly for children. What
actions will you take to require lead to be removed from children’s environment to
reduce their exposure to lead in air, water, soil, and paint?
If confirmed, I will faithfully carry out the authorities granted to EPA by
Congress to reduce exposure to lead.
68.In March 2016 it was reported that 19 drinking water systems in Oklahoma had
elevated lead levels. Of the 100 water systems with the highest self-reported lead
levels between 2013 and 2015, seven are located in Oklahoma. One exceeded
the federal action level by 1,175 parts per billion - many times greater than the
amount of lead needed to cause the death of a fetus or spontaneous abortion, or

30

 permanent severe developmental problems. As Oklahoma A.G., what specific
actions did your office take to protect children against lead poisoning?
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma
Water Resources Board have primary responsibility for implementing and
enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma. Questions relating to actions
taken by the State of Oklahoma with regard to lead in water systems should
thus be directed to those environmental regulators.
69.How will you ensure that required evaluation of state drinking water primacy
programs is conducted and how will you use EPA authority and resources to help
states carry out their Safe Drinking Water Act primacy responsibilities?
If confirmed, I will focus on EPA's core missions, including oversight of
state implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
70.Will you direct EPA to continue and follow up on findings from 2016 increased
oversight of state implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act Lead and
Copper Rule?
Yes.
71.What are your expectations for the 2017 Proposed Revisions to the Safe
Drinking Water Act Lead and Copper Rule?
It is my understanding that EPA expects to issue that proposed rule in 2017.
72.In our conversation in my office, I asked for your thoughts on the Paris
Agreement and the US commitment to the Paris Agreement. You pointed out that
the Paris Agreement commitments are non-binding and when I asked you
whether you thought the US should stay in the Paris Agreement you did not want
to comment because you felt that the Paris Agreement is a matter handled in full
by the State Department. Is that a fair characterization of your comments to me?
I believe I stated that a decision as to whether the U.S. stayed in the Paris
Agreement would be a decision for the State Department.
73.Does that mean that you would advise the EPA to refrain from engaging with
the State Department on US engagements with the UNFCCC and the execution
process around the Paris Agreement?
Interagency cooperation is very important. Should the Administration
decide to continue to participate in the Paris Agreement, and if I am
confirmed as Administrator, I will collaborate with all involved agencies to
ensure that commitments made on behalf of the United States are

31

 achievable and consistent with requisite legal authorities delegated by
Congress.
74.How does your position that EPA should ostensibly recuse itself from State
Department responsibilities and engagements on the Paris Agreement comport
with any plans that you, as the next EPA administrator, may execute to rescind or
alter domestic policies that affect the US National Determined Contribution (NDC)
to the Paris Agreement?
As I stated in a previous answer, should the State Department decide to
continue to participate in the Paris Agreement and if I am confirmed as
Administrator, I will work with all involved agencies to ensure that
commitments made on behalf of the United States are achievable and
consistent with requisite legal authorities delegated by Congress.
75.Recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Chinese
President Xi Jinping expressed China’s great interest in being the world’s leader
on a number of issues including action to address climate change. Do you believe
it is the U.S.’s national interest to cede leadership to the Chinese on global action
to address climate change?
It is the mission of the State Department to advance our national interests
within the realm of foreign policy. If confirmed, I will work to advance the
mission of the EPA, which is to protect human health and the environment,
consistent with the State Department's strategy for international
engagement on climate change.
76.Do you believe climate change is a real and serious threat to the planet?
The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in
some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent
of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and
dialogue.
77.Do you accept the scientific consensus that should average global
temperatures reach or exceed +2 degrees Celsius that many regions of the world
will very likely experience catastrophic changes in the environment that may very
likely impact the safety and prosperity of many people?
• Do you believe that uncertainty in climate science warrants greater study before
the U.S. takes significant action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution?
• If so, are you aware that the portion of the scientific community that claims there
is uncertainty in the science is limited to limited to about 5% of climate science
communities?
• If you believe that the very small portion of the world’s climate science
community who hold outlier opinions on the severity of climate change justifies
inaction, why wouldn’t you give similar credence to other outlying opinions in the
32

 climate science community that hold that global average temperatures may
exceed 10 degrees Celsius and that catastrophic events may occur as soon as
five or ten years?
The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in
some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent
of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and
dialogue. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are
based on the most up to date and objective scientific data.
78.Our ability to predict the weather has improved dramatically over the last 20
years with the advent of supercomputers, new satellite monitoring options, and
vastly superior atmospheric models. But still floods, droughts, hurricanes and
similar phenomena occur and cause damage with sometimes only limited
warning. What precision of prediction do you require before you are willing to
accept the scientific community's overwhelming consensus that unchecked
increases in greenhouse gas emissions will very likely have catastrophic effects,
many of which the National Climate Assessment has described in detail every 4
years since 1990?
The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of human
activity on our changing climate, and what to do about it, are subject to
continuing debate and dialogue. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any
regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific
data.
79.Do you believe that science should guide our nation’s environmental policy?
Congress has made it very clear in the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act
and other major environmental laws that the regulatory actions of the EPA
should be based on the most up to date and objective scientific data. If
confirmed, I will follow the directives of Congress to set science-based
standards to protect the environment and human health.
80.What would have to change about our ability to predict the effect of increasing
greenhouse gas emissions in Earth's atmosphere for you to consider it adequate?
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on
the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving
understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our
changing climate.
81.Would you support making those changes in sufficient time to ward off any
negative effects of increasing those emissions?

33

 The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of human
activity on our changing climate, and what to do about it, are subject to
continuing debate and dialogue. If confirmed, I will make sure the agency's
regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific
data.
82.What is your scientific background and what expertise do you have in
environmental science?
My degrees are in communications, political science, and law. As with prior
EPA Administrators who held bachelor of arts degrees, I completed science
courses as a prerequisite to requiring my degree. Also, I understand that six
of the 12 people who have been confirmed as EPA Administrator (including
the first four individuals) had law degrees.
83.How do you square your opinion that air regulation is a matter for the states
and that EPA has limited authority to mandate regulation of air pollution, with the
court’s overwhelming opinions that EPA has exclusive authority to regulate air
pollution including greenhouse gases?
The concept of cooperative federalism is a bedrock principle of the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other EPA-administered laws. Whether
working to improve air quality, water quality or other important
environmental objectives, Congress made achieving these a shared
responsibility between the EPA and the states. If confirmed, I will respect
the intention of Congress and relative statutory framework.
84.Given that you are one of the lead attorneys challenging the clean power plan,
a regulation promulgated by EPA in part due to the court’s decision in landmark
cases that determining EPA authority and responsibility to regulate greenhouse
gases for domestic sources, in you rescind the Clean Power Plan:
It is unclear what question is being asked.
85.What policies would you promulgate to replace the Clean Power Plan, which
you would have to do to ensure the EPA is in compliance with the court orders to
regulate greenhouse gases?
It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge an issue that may come before
me for decision if I am confirmed as Administrator. If the issue comes
before me, I will ensure that the issue is fully and fairly considered with
input from staff, as part of a transparent process that seeks input from
stakeholders, and that is consistent with EPA's statutory authorities.
86.What assurances will you give the public that your proposed replacement rules
will withstand the tests established in the case law determining EPA’s
endangerment finding is adequate and legal and sufficiently regulates carbon
pollution to protect public health and safety?
34

 It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge an issue that may come before
me for decision if I am confirmed as Administrator. If the issue comes
before me, I will ensure that the issue is fully and fairly considered with
input from staff, as part of a transparent process that seeks input from
stakeholders, and that is consistent with EPA's statutory authorities.
87.Do you trust the analysis, concerns and recommendations of security experts
at the State Department, Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency,
The Navy War College, UN Security Council, and the World Bank, who have
expressed growing concerns over the threat climate change poses to national and
global security?
I have no reason to disagree with the statements from the listed security
experts, although I have not made any attempt to independently verify their
accuracy.
88.U.S, national security experts that are working to incorporate climate modeling
and climate change assessments into our national security planning apparatus
rely on sound scientific analysis, modeling data, and technical assistance from the
EPA in interpreting the data. Will commit to continuing EPA’s engagements with
the agencies and departments responsible protecting our national security and
advancing our understanding and preparedness for the security risks climate
change poses to the United States?
Interagency cooperation is very important. If I am confirmed as
Administrator, I will collaborate with any agency or department that may
require the EPA's technical expertise to strengthen their own administrative
actions.
89.What assurances can you provide the public, particularly vulnerable
communities at greatest risk from pollution, that you will represent their interests
fairly as administrator when your personal political campaigns, as well as
organizations that you have held leadership positions within - like the Republican
Attorneys General Association, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in
contributions from the fossil fuel industry because of your working championing
their interests by challenging laws regulating these industries?
As I explained in my testimony to the Committee, I am a firm believer in the
EPA’s mission to protect the environment and look forward to the
opportunity lead the agency to help provide our future generations with a
better and healthier environment for all Americans.
90.You have lost many of the lawsuits challenging EPA’s authorities, including the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL and the lawsuit challenging the endangerment finding on
greenhouse gases. Given the difficulty you’ve had winning cases, what

35

 assurances can you provide the committee of your sound judgment when it
comes to understanding our nation’s environmental statutes?
As Attorney General of Oklahoma, my focus has been on examining federal
environmental statutes and relevant case law to evaluate the legality of the
EPA’s actions and the impact of those actions on Oklahoma. Oklahoma
filed a friend of the court brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit in part to inform the court how EPA’s interpretation of TMDL and
other matters involved in the challenge would impact other states, including
Oklahoma. If I am confirmed, I will apply those lessons which I have
developed in the performance of my duties as Attorney General and would
continue to do so if confirmed as Administrator.
91.Will you work with all stakeholders and the State Department on execution of
the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phasedown hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs) and will you commit to ensuring that any actions EPA may take to modify
or rescind the Safe New Alternatives Program (SNAP) rules on HFCs coincide
with the U.S.’s acceptance or ratification of the Kigali Amendment?
Should the State Department decide to advance the Kigali Amendment to
the Montreal Protocol and if I am confirmed as Administrator, I will work
with all involved agencies and impacted stakeholders to ensure that EPA's
actions related to hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are coordinated accordingly.

36

 Ranking Member Carper:
1. Please list all public speeches or presentations you have made that included
references to any issue related to energy or the environment since 1998, and
please provide copies (written, audio, or video) of any such speeches or
presentations. Please also indicate whether you received compensation for any
such speech or presentation (whether stipend, travel, lodging expenses, or other
form of remuneration) along with the name of the entity that provided such
compensation and the amount thereof.
Please see attached list of speeches and enclosed copies of speeches in
response to this request.
2. Please provide a list of the skills and experiences you bring to the EPA
Administrator position and why you believe that you would be a good fit for the
position.
I am a licensed attorney with significant experience in constitutional law, the
Administrative Procedure Act, and Environmental Protection Agency
administered statutes. This body has recognized my expertise in EPA
related matters on several occasions, inviting me to testify before this and
other committees on matters relating to the EPA. My legal education and
profession has trained me to ask probing questions and think critically
regardless of the subject.
3. Please define the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s mission and the
role you believe that sound science plays in fulfilling that mission.
The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment. Where
Congress directs the EPA to act based upon scientific findings, the EPA
should rely on well-reasoned, and sound, scientific findings.
4. In a 2006 article in The Oklahoman, you were described as someone that
"believes in negotiating, but not compromising." Do you feel this continues to be
an accurate description of you? If so, why? Do you agree with President Nixon’s
articulation of the principal roles and functions of the EPA? If you do not agree,
please explain the aspects with which you disagree and why.
Based on the limited information provided in the question, I am uncertain
about the article to which the question refers. The content and context of
37

 the article and quote are not readily apparent. However, if confirmed as
Administrator, I will take my responsibility to protect human health and the
environment for all Americans with the highest possible dedication and
commitment in accordance with the legal authorities established by
Congress. I have a record of working on a bipartisan basis.
5. Do you think it is constitutional for Congress to direct EPA to set national
standards that protect public health? Is it constitutional for Congress to do that
even if the pollution only harms citizens of a single state?
The constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress depends on the
particulars of the particular law, and will typically be decided by a court.
Courts have generally recognized that Congress has the authority to create
the EPA and vest certain powers in it.
6. Mr. Pruitt, your official biography on the website of the Oklahoma Attorney
General's office says that you are "...a leading advocate against the EPA's activist
agenda." The EPA, the agency you have been nominated to lead, has the critical
mission "to protect human health and the environment" for all Americans. When
you sued the EPA over the Good Neighbor Rule (Cross-state Rule), how did that
protect human health and the environment for downwind states?
I firmly believe that the EPA plays an important role in addressing interstate
water and air quality issues, but it must do so within the bounds of its legal
authority. The actions undertaken by the Office of Attorney General
challenging the Cross State Air Pollution Rule related to whether EPA had
properly accounted for and allocated pollution from upwind states, as
mandated by Congress. Regulations that are not on solid legal foundation
and that cannot survive judicial review will not result in environmental
protections.
7. You’ve been part of numerous lawsuits against the EPA – against clean air,
clean water and climate regulations. However, you also have stated you are for
clean air and clean water. Can you name one Clean Air Act regulation – not a
voluntary or grant program – that is on the books today that you do support?
I firmly believe that the EPA plays an important role, especially as it relates
to cross-state air and water pollution, but EPA must do so within the
bounds of its legal authority as provided by Congress. Regulations that are
not on solid legal foundation and that cannot survive judicial review will not
result in environmental protections.

38

 8. Are there any other EPA regulations that are on the books today that you do
support?
I have not conducted a comprehensive review of existing EPA regulations.
As Attorney General, I have brought legal challenges involving EPA
regulations out of concern that EPA has exceeded its statutory authority
based on the record and law in that matter.
9. President-elect Donald Trump has said repeatedly—at least half a dozen
times—on the campaign trail that he would starve the EPA of funding or
completely eliminate the agency. In March last year, the President-elect stated in
reference to the EPA:
“We are going to get rid of it in almost every form. We’re going to have little tidbits
left but we’re going to take a tremendous amount out,”
After the election, the President-elect didn’t seem to change his tune. Presidentelect Trump stated two days after the election again in reference to the EPA:
“Environmental protection, what they do is a disgrace; every week they come out
with new regulations,”
You also have a history attacking the agency. Please tell us why we should
disregard the President-elect’s statement on the EPA, disregard your actions and
only believe your words that you will support clean air and clean water laws?
As I testified, I support the EPA's mission to protect human health and the
environment. If confirmed, I will faithfully execute the environmental laws
enacted by Congress.
10. As Administrator, will you take into account the true costs of air pollution
including the adverse health and environmental impacts on states that are
adversely affected by upwind pollution sources?
As I stated at the hearing, costs are important in the rulemaking process
and the Courts have recognized that important factor. The Clean Air Act
prescribes when costs should be considered and to what extent in a

39

 rulemaking. If confirmed, I commit to faithfully executing the law as enacted
by Congress.
11. As Administrator, will you take into account the full economic and job benefits
that result from clean air protections such as the economic benefits to
communities from clean air and American leading businesses that manufacture
advanced technologies?
As I stated at the hearing, the EPA should consider the benefits of cleaner
air for the public. The Clean Air Act prescribes certain instances where the
EPA is obligated to conduct a cost-benefit analysis as part of the
rulemaking process. If confirmed, I commit to faithfully execute the law as
enacted by Congress.
12. If it is technologically and economically feasible to eliminate the release of a
particular pollutant, do you agree that we should do so?
Environmental statutes prescribe certain instances where technological or
economic feasibility is a relevant factor to consider in a rulemaking. If
confirmed, I commit to faithfully execute the law as enacted by Congress.
13. I have often found that environmental regulations can and often drive
innovation. We have seen that with the Acid Rain Program, CAFÉ, Clean Diesel
standards, RFS and most recently with the mercury standards. Do you agree
environmental regulations often drive innovation? If so, why? If not, why not?
The factors that lead to technological innovation can be complex and
varied, and legal requirements may be one such factor.
14. Who serves or has served as your scientific advisor for climate change
related issues during your time as attorney general? Please provide their names,
their titles, and when they served as your science advisors.
The Office of Attorney General does not have a science advisor to advise on
climate change related issues.
15. Mr. Pruitt, my State of Delaware is already seeing the adverse effects of
climate change with sea level rise, ocean acidification, and stronger storms.
While all states will be harmed by climate change, the adverse effects will vary by
40

 state and region. Can you comment on why it is imperative that we have national
standards for the reduction in carbon pollution?
If confirmed, I will fulfill the duties of the Administrator consistent with
Massachusetts v. EPA and the agency's Endangerment Finding on
Greenhouse Gases respective of the relative statutory framework
established by Congress.
16. Pruitt, will you agree that there will be no retaliation against EPA employees
who work on climate change issues?
If confirmed, yes.
17. Clean car standards save consumers money at the pump and help reduce oil
imports. Automakers are complying with vehicle standards ahead of schedule. As
Administrator, will you commit to support, defend and enforce EPA’s current
programs to address emissions from vehicles?
Congress has enacted numerous statutes directly or indirectly affecting
transportation fuels, transportation fuel infrastructure, and the vehicles that
consume those fuels. Congress committed many of those statutes to the
EPA Administrator's responsibility. If confirmed as Administrator, I would
administer each of those statutes in accordance with Congress's statutory
objectives, and in light of the administrative record in each given
proceeding. And I would work with Congress to ensure that its statutes
continue to provide the best possible legal framework for governing
American fuels, fuel infrastructure, and vehicles, and for promoting
American energy independence, energy security, and environmental
protection.
18. What is your definition of sound science?
Sound science is that which complies with applicable laws and federal
guidance regarding scientific integrity, peer review, information quality, and
transparency.
19. Prior to your nomination, how have you acquired scientific information
relevant to the missions of the EPA? And since your nomination?

41

 As Attorney General of Oklahoma, my focus has been on examining federal
environmental statutes and relevant case law to evaluate the legality of the
EPA’s actions. Legal education is rooted in the Socratic method, which
trains law students through probing questions and critical thinking and I
apply those lessons and skills in the performance of my duties as Attorney
General and would continue to do so if confirmed as Administrator.
20. Please list all undergraduate and postgraduate science courses that you have
taken. Please describe any other science education that you have completed over
the years beyond high school.
My degrees are in communications, political science, and law. As with prior
EPA Administrators who held bachelor of arts degrees, I completed science
courses as a prerequisite to requiring my degree.
21. President Nixon articulated that an important role for EPA is “The conduct of
research on the adverse effects of pollution . . . the gathering of information on
pollution, and the use of this information in strengthening environmental protection
programs and recommending policy changes.” Do you agree with President Nixon
that EPA has an important role to play in researching any emerging risks from
pollution as well as strengthening protections and recommending policy changes
based on the science?
Yes.
22. Do you think the U.S. National Academy of Sciences is a reliable authority on
scientific matters?
I have no reason to think otherwise, but I have not had occasion as Attorney
General to consider this issue.
23. What degree of scientific certainty should the EPA have about a potential
health or environmental threat before acting to protect people from that threat?
EPA actions are governed by statutes such as the Clean Air Act and other
legal authorities and relevant case law, which establish applicable legal and
scientific standards for the Administrator to act. If confirmed, I will adhere
to these authorities to fulfill EPA's mission to protect human health and the
environment for all Americans.

42

 24. Do you support legislative efforts to change the independent nature of the
EPA' s Science Advisory Board? If so, please explain why.
I am unfamiliar with the legislative efforts being referred to in this question.
If confirmed, I expect to be briefed by EPA staff before taking any position
on such matters.
25. If confirmed, do you plan to propose or advocate for budget cuts to the EPA's
FY 2018 budget? If so, for which programs would you reduce funding? Would
you target the EPA's research programs? Are there areas of agency action where
you believe additional financial resources are needed?
I have no first-hand knowledge of EPA's development of its FY 2018 budget
request. If confirmed, I look forward to working with EPA's budget staff and
program offices to develop a budget and will work to ensure that the
resources appropriated to EPA by Congress are managed wisely in pursuit
of the Agency's important mission and in accordance with all applicable
legal authorities.
26. For the most part, patients and their families only participate in scientific trials
and studies once they know their privacy - and any resulting health-related
information - will remain confidential and secure. If confirmed, do you commit to
respecting confidentiality agreements that exist between researchers and their
subjects? Will you protect the health information of the thousands of people that
have participated in health studies in the past?
If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with EPA scientists and the
thousands of other dedicated public servants at EPA who have chosen to
devote their careers to improving public health and our environment. I have
no first-hand knowledge of EPA's policies or practice concerning the
confidentiality of health information. If confirmed, I would expect to learn
more about the existing practice and I commit to follow applicable legal
authorities regarding the confidentiality of health information.
27. If confirmed, how will you ensure that EPA maintains independent science,
transparent decision-making, and scientific free speech?
If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with EPA scientists and the
thousands of other dedicated public servants at EPA who have chosen to

43

 devote their careers to improving public health and our environment. I also
commit, if confirmed, to follow applicable laws and federal guidance on
scientific integrity, information quality, and transparency.
28. Mr. Pruitt, when Congress passed our bedrock environmental laws, we
directed EPA to periodically review and update the federal minimum health
protection standards based on the best available scientific evidence. Do you
agree that these federal minimum standards must be based on the best available
science?
I agree that EPA regulatory actions must be based on the best available
science in accordance with the law. If confirmed, I commit to faithfully
execute the law as enacted by Congress.
29. Mr. Pruitt, conflicts of interest threaten the integrity of science and public trust
in the agency’s scientific determinations. Scientists are not immune from having
their work and conclusions influenced by their financial interests. Allowing
scientists with conflicts of interest to serve as peer reviewers is contrary to widely
accepted scientific integrity practices, including those of the National Academies
of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and other scientific bodies. Industry
funded scientists who may have unique expertise can be invited to present
information to peer reviewers or an advisory committee, but should not actually
serve as a reviewer or member of the committee. Can you explain what steps
you would take as Administrator to ensure that scientists with financial conflicts of
interest do not threaten the independent peer review process at EPA?
Independent peer review is critical to ensuring the scientific integrity of EPA
actions. If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with EPA's scientists
and the thousands of other dedicated public servants at EPA who have
chosen to devote their careers to making a healthier and cleaner
environment. I commit, if confirmed, to follow applicable legal authorities
regarding conflicts of interests in the scientific peer review process.
30. Mr. Pruitt, do you agree that for scientific research to be credible, it must be
subject to objective, independent peer review before it is published and remain
subject to scrutiny after it is published?
Independent peer review is critical to ensuring the integrity of scientific
research. If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with EPA's scientists
and the thousands of other dedicated public servants at EPA who have
chosen to devote their careers to making a healthier and cleaner

44

 environment. I commit, if confirmed, to follow applicable legal authorities
regarding the peer review process for scientific research.
31. Mr. Pruitt, do you agree that for scientific research to be credible, scientists
must disclose all sources of funding for their research?
Credible scientific research is critical to the EPA's mission and, if
confirmed, I commit to follow applicable legal authorities regarding
scientific research.
32. In the 1970 and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress delayed older
coal power plants air control requirements because Congress thought that most of
the old plants would be shuttered in the decade after the legislation passed.
Congress thought there was no need to invest in new technologies at these old,
dying plants. Did many of these coal plants actually retire? Do you know the
average age of our coal fleet?
I understand that the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Electric
Power Annual 2015 report released in November 2016 indicated that
between 2005 and 2015 more than one-third of U.S. coal-fired power plants
retired and the remaining fleet has an average age of 38 years.
33. Do you know what the role the price of natural gas plays in industry decisions
to retire coal plants and fuel switch to natural gas?
I am aware that market conditions, such as the reduced price of natural gas,
and costly environmental regulations have been causing coal-fired power
plants to prematurely shut-down or convert to natural gas.
34. In your cases against the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, who served as
your scientific advisor for the case?
Oklahoma's petition to review the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule was a legal
challenge brought on the administrative record and argued that EPA acted
contrary to law and arbitrarily and capriciously by not considering the costs
of regulation in determining whether it was necessary and appropriate to
regulate mercury from fossil fuel power plants within the meaning of
Section 112(n). The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Oklahoma's
argument that EPA failed to act in accordance with the rule of law when it
ignored costs in its determination and remanded the matter to the D.C.
Circuit.

45

 35. Mr. Pruitt, ten percent of American women have dangerous levels of mercury
in their bodies. But recent data shows that since the United States started
cleaning up emissions from coal power plants, not only has mercury pollution in
the North Atlantic fallen dramatically, so has the concentration of mercury in
Atlantic fisheries. Mercury in Atlantic bluefin tuna is down 19% in only eight years.
Given this resounding confirmation that regulation works, how firmly can you
assure us that if you are confirmed, EPA’s recent successful crackdown on all
sources of mercury emissions, including coal power plants will accelerate, rather
than pulling back?
As I stated in my testimony, mercury is listed as a hazardous air pollutant
under section 112 of the Clean Air Act and is subject to regulation from
listed source categories of hazardous air pollutants. If I am confirmed as
Administrator, I will regulate under Section 112 in a manner that is
consistent with Congress's intent in enacting that provision. I will also
faithfully administer other federal statutes that regulate mercury to the
extent that they are under my jurisdiction, including the Mercury Export Ban
Act of 2008, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management
Act of 1996, the Clean Water Act, the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
36. As you may remember, we had three exchanges over the issue of whether
EPA should regulate toxic air emissions, including mercury, from power plants,
specifically through the provisions authorized under Section 112 of the Clean Act.
We also discussed your lawsuits, one pending, against the recent EPA rule that
again addresses regulation of power plant mercury and other toxic air emissions
under Section 112. Below is a direct quote from our second exchange, when I
asked you directly about regulating power plant toxic air emissions:
“Senator, I actually have not stated that I believe the EPA should not move
forward on regulating mercury or adopting rulemaking in that regard. Our
challenge was with regard to the process that was used in that case and how it
was not complicit with statutes as defined by congress. So there is not a
statement or belief that I have that mercury is something that shouldn't be
regulated under section 112 as a hazardous air pollution. A HAP.”
These statements conflict directly with the language in the brief that you filed on
June 2012 in White Stallion Energy, et al. V EPA: which says: “Finally, the record
does not support EPA’s findings that mercury, non-mercury HAP metals, and acid
gas haps pose public health hazards.”

46

 These statements also conflict directly with language in the brief in the pending
case that you filed April 25, 2016 with Murray Energy Corporation, et al v EPA:
"EPA cannot properly conclude that it is "appropriate and necessary to regulate
HAPs under Section 112.”
These written statements quite clearly directly contradict your statements before
our committee. Which statement is false, the verbal before our committee or the
legal documents you filed pending in court? If confirmed, will you recuse yourself
from any involvement in questions or cases related to regulating air toxic emission
from power plants under Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act?
As I stated in my testimony, mercury is listed as a hazardous air pollutant
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and is subject to regulation from
listed source categories of hazardous air pollutants. Electric utility steam
generating units are subject to regulation under Section 112 only upon a
lawful showing that their regulation is appropriate and necessary. In
Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court agreed with Oklahoma's legal position
when it concluded that EPA interpreted Section 112(n) unreasonably by
failing to consider costs in its appropriate and necessary
determination. That challenge was made by Oklahoma on the specific
administrative record before the court in that matter and all statements
regarding the sufficiency of regulation in that case relate only to the
material in the record before the Agency. If I am confirmed as
Administrator, I will apply the Clean Air Act faithfully in all matters before
me and will follow the advice of the EPA Ethics Counsel in determining any
recusals.
37. As you may remember, we had three exchanges over the issue of whether
EPA should regulate mercury (and other air toxic) emissions from power plants,
specifically through the provisions authorized under Section 112 of the Clean Act.
We also discussed your lawsuits, one pending, against the recent EPA rule that
implement regulations to regulate power plant mercury emissions under Section
112. As you may remember, I specifically asked you at the end of the hearing:
“Based on your earlier statements, that if confirmed we can have your assurances
that the EPA will continue to regulate mercury emissions from power plants under
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and you will not defer to the states.”
You answered:

47

 “Mercury under Section 112 is something that EPA should deal with and
regulate.”
You stated this many times. I was very clear in my questioning that I was asking
about mercury emissions and of course, the many other air toxic emissions, which
the courts have said must be regulated under Section 112(d) from power plants.
However, in this answer, you only mentioned mercury and not power plant
mercury emissions, and you completely disregarded the other air toxics that are
emitted by power plants, which include acid gases and carcinogenic metals like
arsenic, nickel and cadmium. So please clarify, if confirmed, can we have your
assurance that the EPA will continue to regulate power plants using the
technology based standards required by Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act and
you will not defer to the states. Please answer in regards to all power plant air
toxic emissions, not just on the question of mercury itself, and not just with
respect to whether mercury should be regulated, but as to whether power plant
mercury and other air toxics must be regulated.
As I stated in my testimony, mercury is listed as a hazardous air pollutant
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and is subject to regulation from
listed source categories of hazardous air pollutants. Electric utility steam
generating units are subject to regulation under Section 112 only upon a
lawful showing that their regulation is appropriate and necessary. In
Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court agreed with Oklahoma's legal position
when it concluded that EPA interpreted Section 112(n) unreasonably by
failing to consider costs in its appropriate and necessary
determination. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard has not been vacated
by the Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit and currently regulates both
mercury and other air toxics. As Administrator, I will enforce the Mercury Air
Toxics Rule so long as that Rule remains in force.
38. As you may remember, we had three exchanges over the issue of whether
EPA should regulate mercury (and other air toxic) emissions from power plants,
specifically through the provisions authorized under Section 112 of the Clean Act.
We also discussed your lawsuits, one pending, against the recent EPA rule that
implement regulations to regulate power plant mercury emissions under Section
112. After our first exchange, you stated:
“There was no argument that 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 Michigan v EPA case the
Supreme Court actually agreed. It was more about the process again that the
EPA was supposed to go through in regulating mercury to provide certainty to

48

 those in the workplace, not a statement in respect whether mercury should be
regulated or not under section 112.”
Mr. Pruitt, in this exchange, did you mean to avoid the question whether power
plant mercury and other HAPs must be regulated under the technology based
requirements of maximum achievable control, under Section 112(d)? Or do you
agree the Supreme Court, which expressly declined to consider this question,
leaving the MATs Rules Section 112(d) regulations in place? Please fully explain
your previous statements.
Neither statement is false. As I stated in my testimony, mercury is listed as a
hazardous air pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and is
subject to regulation from listed source categories of hazardous air
pollutants, and Oklahoma was not challenging mercury’s status as a HAP in
the case you reference. Electric utility steam generating units are subject to
regulation under Section 112 only upon a lawful showing that their
regulation is appropriate and necessary. In Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme
Court agreed with Oklahoma's legal position when it concluded that EPA
interpreted Section 112(n) unreasonably by failing to consider costs in its
appropriate and necessary determination. The Mercury and Air Toxics
Standard has not been vacated by the Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit and
currently regulates both mercury and other air toxics. As Administrator, I
will enforce the Mercury Air Toxics Rule so long as that Rule remains in
force.
39. As you may remember, we had three exchanges over the issue of whether
EPA should regulate mercury (and other air toxic) emissions from power plants,
specifically through the provisions authorized under Section 112 of the Clean Act.
We also discussed your lawsuits, one pending, against the recent EPA rule that
implement regulations to regulate power plant mercury emissions under Section
112. As you may remember, I specifically asked you at the end of the hearing:
“Based on your earlier statements, that if confirmed we can have your
assurances that the EPA will continue to regulate mercury emissions from power
plants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and you will not defer to the states.”
You answered:
“Mercury under Section 112 is something that EPA should deal with and regulate.”

49

 You stated this many times during our exchanges. I was very clear in my
questioning that I was asking about mercury emissions from power plants. And of
course as well the many other air toxics emitted by this industry and listed by
congress for regulation. However, in this answer, you only mentioned mercury
and not power plant mercury emissions, or other air toxics at all. So please
clarify,
• Do you agree that the EPA’s recent consideration of the costs of the Mercury
and Air Toxics Rule that shows that the agency has met the "necessary and
appropriate" criteria Congress provided under 112(n) to direct the EPA to regulate
power plant mercury (and other air toxic) emissions under Section 112, and more
specifically under Section 112(d)? If not, why not?
• If you do not agree that EPA has met the “necessary and appropriate” criteria
found in Section 112(n), what is your understanding of what that would mean for
the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule?
• If the pending case you brought before the DC Circuit challenging EPA’s cost
analysis (Murray Energy Corporation, et al v EPA), is successful what is your
view of what EPA would have to do to regulate mercury and other hazardous air
pollutant power plant emissions under Section 112?
As I stated in my testimony, mercury is listed as a hazardous air pollutant
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and is subject to regulation from
listed source categories of hazardous air pollutants. Electric utility steam
generating units are subject to regulation under Section 112 only upon a
lawful showing that their regulation is appropriate and necessary. In
Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court agreed with Oklahoma's legal position
when it concluded that EPA interpreted Section 112(n) unreasonably by
failing to consider costs in its appropriate and necessary determination. In
my capacity as Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, on remand the
petitioner group has argued that EPA's supplemental finding regarding
costs is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious for the reasons stated
in that brief. If the D.C. Circuit finds against EPA, I am confirmed as
Administrator and the matter comes before me at that time, I will seek
and follow the advice of EPA Ethics Counsel in determining whether I may
participate in that matter. If I do participate in that matter, I will apply the
Clean Air Act faithfully and use my best efforts to take appropriate action in
light of the administrative record before the Agency at that time.
40. In the pending case you brought before the DC Circuit challenging EPA’s cost
analysis (Murray Energy Corporation, et al v EPA), the following statement is
included in your brief:
"EPA also claims that, even though it was able to quantify highly uncertain IAQ
benefits purportedly resulting from mercury emissions, other health and
50

 environmental benefits of reducing EGU mercury, acid gas, and non-mercury
metals emissions simply could not be quantified. But these purported benefits are
to speculative to support "appropriate and necessary" finding for the same
reasons the Agency cannot quantify them: they are not supported by the scientific
literature."
As you probably know, the health benefits of cleaning up hazardous air pollutants
are many, although many are difficult to quantify and certainly difficult or
impossible to monetize. There are, however, several studies on how to quantify
loss of IQ from mercury exposure and some early studies on how to quantify longterm effects of exposure. If confirmed, how do you recommend the EPA calculate
the health risks to the unborn that may be exposed to mercury-laden fish because
of power plant mercury emissions? How would you quantify the health risks of the
Oklahomans living near the forty lakes that have mercury fish consumption
advisories? There are also emerging studies quantifying the health impacts of the
toxic metals and acid gases emitted by power plants, although monetizing the
precise health costs of each pollutant are not possible as they are emitted in the
toxic soup. How would you justify not protecting people living near these
emissions if it were not possible to precisely quantify the health risks of exposure
to power plant emissions of hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, nickel, arsenic,
chromium and other heavy metals?
If I am confirmed as Administrator, I look forward to working with EPA staff
to arrive at a transparent and scientifically sound process for determining
the health risks associated with any activity that is properly before me at the
Agency, including those related to mercury exposure, and regulating those
activities as appropriate consistent with Congress's intent in enacting the
Clean Air Act.
41. What industry is the largest emitter of mercury air emissions in this country?
The second? The third? Please provide peer-reviewed data and sources for this
answer.
EPA's technical support document (v2) for the 2011 National Emissions
Inventory indicates that the industries that are the three largest point source
emitters of mercury in the U.S. are (1) utility coal boilers, (2) electric arc
furnaces, and (3) industrial, commercial institutional boilers and process
heaters.
42. What impacts do mercury power plant air emissions have on unborn children?
Can you explain how power plant mercury emissions settle in water bodies and
eventually can impact the unborn?

51

 Some portion of mercury emitted into the air by power plants is deposited
directly or indirectly into a watershed. Once present in the watershed, it can
be naturally converted into methylmercury, which can then can be absorbed
by aquatic organisms, such as fish, and consumed by humans. The unborn
children of pregnant women can be exposed to methylmercury if their
mothers consume those fish.
43. How much of our nation’s mercury air emissions come from the natural
environment, vs manmade emissions? Please provide peer-reviewed data and
sources for this answer.
J.M.Pacynaetal.:Current and future levels of mercury atmospheric pollution
on a global scale, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 12495–12511, 2016, indicates
that approximately 30% of worldwide mercury emissions are manmade and
70% come from primary natural mercury emissions and re-emissions.
44. Mr. Pruitt, do you understand that EPA’s data show that power plants emit not
only 50 percent of all US emissions of mercury, but that they also emit 82% of
hydrochloric acid gas, 62% of hydrofluoric acid gas as well as many listed heavy
metals, which are emitted as particulate matter, including Selenium (83% of
domestic emissions), Nickel (28% of domestic emissions), Arsenic (62% of
domestic emissions), Chromium (22% of domestic emissions), and others? The
cite for those statistics is found in EPA’s record at 76 Fed. Reg. Page 25006
Table 5. Given that Section 112(d) as interpreted by the US Courts for many
years requires the regulation of all listed hazardous air pollutants from listed
industries, would you not agree that power plant hazardous air pollutants must all
be regulated under the technology based requirements of section 112(d)?
The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard has not been vacated by the Supreme
Court or the D.C. Circuit and currently regulates both mercury and other air
toxics. If confirmed, I will enforce the Mercury Air Toxics Rule so long as
that Rule remains in force.
45. Given that the statute requires a showing that not one power plant emits
hazardous air pollutants in amounts greater than required to cause a lifetime risk
of cancer greater than one in a million to the most exposed persons, and for noncarcinogenic air toxics, to exceed a level which is adequate to protect public
health with an ample margin of safety and no adverse environmental effects, and
given that EPA’s long standing record shows that the coal- and oil-fired power
industry cannot make either of those showings what other regulatory mechanism
do you believe is available “under section 112”?
52

 The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard has not been vacated by the Supreme
Court or the D.C. Circuit and currently regulates both mercury and other air
toxics. If confirmed, I will enforce Mercury Air Toxics Rule so long as that
Rule remains in force. If I am confirmed as Administrator and am presented
with information showing that EPA has discretion to regulate power plants
in a manner that is consistent with the Clean Air Act but that differs from the
Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, or that power plants meet the standard for
de-listing under Section 1129c)(9), I would consider that matter in due
course as I would consider any other matter under my jurisdiction in due
course.
46. The joint brief filed by your state and the regulated industry in the most recent
round of appeals of EPA’s decision making on power plant air toxics suggests that
you are not aware of recent court precedent upholding EPA’s evaluation of all the
benefits, including so-called ‘co-benefits’ of EPA’s rulemaking on particulate
matter reductions that would be the direct result of the rule. What is your position
on the importance of judicial precedent in governing the Agency’s actions under
the same statutes as have been previously interpreted by the courts?
If confirmed, I would faithfully comply the Clean Air Act in accordance with
congressional intent. Judicial precedent is undoubtedly an important guide
to congressional intent but Congress has also delegated interpretive
authority to the Administrator of the Clean Air Act, consistent with judicial
review. If I am confirmed as Administrator and form the judgment that a
judicial decision is incorrect, I would consider seeking an appeal or petition
for certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of that decision.
Likewise, EPA recently promulgated regional consistency regulations that
address the implication of adverse federal court decisions that result from
challenges to locally or regionally applicable actions and I would exercise
my discretion under those regional consistency regulations unless and until
they are changed.
47. As I am sure you are aware, the US Supreme Court has expressly declined to
consider whether EPA should have chosen some other mechanism “under section
112” in regulating power plant mercury and all the other HAPs emitted by the
industry. What is your position on that precedent?
In the White Stallion decision, the D.C. Circuit held that EPA's interpretation
of Section 112(n) that Sections 112(c) and -(d) provided the appropriate
mechanism for regulating power plants under Section 112 after the
appropriate and necessary determination was made was entitled to
deference. As your question indicates, the Supreme Court did not grant
53

 discretionary review of that question. So long as the White Stallion decision
is not reversed by the D.C. Circuit and the underlying agency action is not
vacated, it remains a valid judicial precedent on this point.
48. Given that you have been actively suing the EPA over the Mercury and Air
Toxics Rule and have one pending lawsuit, will you recuse yourself from
participating in any decision making that may reopen the EPA's decision
regarding the fact that it is "necessary and appropriate" to regulate power plants
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act?
As I stated in my testimony to the Committee, I will follow the advice of EPA
Ethics Counsel in all recusal matters.
49. If confirmed, will you continue with EPA's assertion that it is "necessary and
appropriate" to regulate mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power
plants under Section 112 – specifically under the technology based maximum
achievable control requirements of Section 112(d)?
The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard has not been vacated by the Supreme
Court or the D.C. Circuit and currently regulates both mercury and other air
toxics. As Administrator, I will enforce all aspects of the Mercury Air Toxics
Rule so long as that Rule remains in force.
50. Do you agree with the Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531
U.S. 457 (2001) decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia that states that the
EPA cannot consider implementation costs when setting primary and secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards? If you do not agree, please explain.
As I stated in my testimony to Congress, there are instances where
consideration of costs is not a factor. Setting the NAAQS for criteria
pollutants is one such instance.
51. In 2015, you stated that in implementing the tighter ozone NAAQS, the EPA
"failed to achieve the goals to protect air quality; the agency did not "articulate
how the rule would further protect public health"; and was another "attempt by the
administration to use executive agencies like the EPA to bypass Congress." Can
you please explain what you meant by these statements?
Based on the limited information in the question, the source or context of
the quote to which the questions refers is not readily apparent. Oklahoma
54

 joined four other states in a petition for review of EPA’s 2015 decision to
lower the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone from 75 ppb to 70
ppb. The legal question raised by the state petitioners in the case is whether
EPA set the standard at a level than can be achieved by states given the
background concentrations and uncontrollable sources of ozone in many
parts of the country. The briefs filed by the many State petitioners to that
rule fully explain the States’ position and speak for themselves. The case
remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit.
52. As many of my colleagues know, I am an avid runner. I especially love to run
with my 22-year son, who is a triathlete. In Delaware during the summer, we often
have code orange days warning about the high levels of ozone for that day. Can
you take a minute or two to describe how high levels of ozone could damage my
lungs if I were to take a long run during a code orange day? Does ozone pollution
cross state boundaries? If confirmed, how would you direct states to work
together to reduce ozone pollution?
As I indicated at my nomination hearing, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
is important, as pollution does cross state boundaries. An upwind state that
contributes to a downwind state's inability to meet air quality standards
should take responsibility.
53. In 2013, you argued that the EPA's decision to impose a Federal
Implementation Plan on Oklahoma to address Regional Haze would cost more
than $1 billion over five years. It is three years later. Do you still agree with this
cost assessment? If not, why not?
The cost estimates referenced in this question were developed in
connection with the Oklahoma State Implementation Plan that EPA rejected
and EPA’s subsequent decision to implement a Federal Implementation
Plan. Oklahoma and a state utility filed legal challenges against the Federal
Implementation Plan decision. The 10th Circuit initially stayed the rule
pending judicial review. A split panel of the 10th Circuit upheld the Federal
Implementation Plan in 2013. As Attorney General, I have not had reason to
revisit the specific cost estimate at issue in this case.
If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will use my best efforts to hold to the
five-year NAAQS review period prescribed by the Clean Air Act.

55

 54.If confirmed, will you continue to hold to the five-year National Ambient Air
Quality Standards review time period that the Clean Air Act requires of the EPA?
If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will use my best efforts to hold to the
five-year NAAQS review period prescribed by the Clean Air Act.
55. In previous hearings in this committee, we have had a few economists testify
questioning EPA’s science linking small particle pollution to negative health
impacts. Can you just take a moment and talk about what you know about small
particles and how they impact our lungs? Is the science robust in this area?
The science linking adverse health impacts and fine particulate matter
pollution is well established. Accordingly, EPA has promulgated a National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter pollution that limits the
concentration of small particulates, including those smaller than 2.5
microns, in the ambient air that at the level that the agency has determined
is requisite to protect public health and welfare from adverse effects, while
allowing an adequate margin of safety.
56. Mr. Pruitt, Section 109 of the Clean Air Act is very clear. It requires EPA to
review the NAAQS for six common air pollutants including ground-level ozone,
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide every 5 years. The Clean Air
Act requires EPA to set these standards that “are requisite to protect the public
health," with "an adequate margin of safety," and secondary standard necessary
to protect public welfare. The science was clear that the 2008 ozone standard
was not protecting public health, so EPA was required to Act. Is that not your
understanding of the Clean Air Act?
Section 109 of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to set NAAQS at the level that
is requisite to protect against adverse health and welfare effects, while
allowing an adequate margin of safety. The Act includes a regular review
cycle for criteria pollutants.
57. The EPA updated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in September 2016,
which is within the time period for the rule to be subject to the Congressional
Review Act (CRA). As Administrator, would you support the President signing a
CRA resolution of disapproval that would reject these new standards?
Although I am familiar with the update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
and generally familiar with the Congressional Review Act, I have not

56

 reviewed any potential legislation which may reject these new standards. If I
am confirmed, I will thoroughly review any resolution of disapproval which
may be filed pursuant to the Congressional Review Act on this issue.
58. Mr. Pruitt, the Clean Air Act recognizes that air pollution does not respect state
boundaries and directs EPA to set minimum national standards to protect the
health of the nation, including protecting downwind states.
• Do you agree that EPA should set minimum national standards?
• Do you agree that EPA must protect downwind states?
As I indicated during my nomination hearing, I believe the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule is important and should be enforced by the EPA. An upwind
state that contributes to a downwind state's nonattainment should take
responsibility for that contribution.
59. Mr. Pruitt, my State of Delaware is a downwind state, and most of the air
pollution in my state is coming from upwind states.
• Do you agree that it is EPA’s role to ensure equity between where air pollution is
produced and where it is received?
• Do you agree that to remedy this unfairness, the upwind states must do more to
control their emissions to avoid exporting the pollution (and the costs to the health
and welfare) to the downwind states?
As I indicated during my nomination hearing, I believe the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule is important and should be enforced by the EPA. An upwind
state that contributes to a downwind state's nonattainment should take
responsibility for that contribution.
60. As you are well aware, on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S.
497 (2007), the Supreme Court determined that sufficient information existed then
for EPA to make an endangerment finding with respect to the combined emissions
of six greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines
under CAA section 202(a). On December 7, 2009, the Administrator determined
that those gases/sources contribute to greenhouse gas pollution that endangers
public health and welfare. How do you plan to execute your legal authority to
protect the public health and welfare from greenhouse gas pollution?
The Supreme Court held that GHGs are an air pollutant under the Clean Air
Act. It did not address the question of whether regulation of GHGs under
the Clean Air Act is warranted. In the subsequent UARG decision, the
57

 Supreme Court cautioned EPA that there are significant limits on EPA’s
authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. The unprecedented
Supreme Court stay of EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan” was predicated
upon a finding that the plaintiffs in the case were likely to prevail on the
merits. In light of these holdings, I will hew closely to the text and intent of
the Clean Air Act when considering further regulation of GHGs under that
law if confirmed as Administrator.
61. Building off Congress’s work on CAFE, the Obama Administration has
updated emission standards for light and heavy-duty vehicles. These rules have
had very little effect on the purchase price of new vehicles, but have saved
consumers millions of dollars in fuel costs, vastly improved our energy security by
slowing petroleum use and reduced a lot of pollution. If confirmed, do you
support further strengthening vehicle emission standards? And with your
federalism view, how do states address carbon pollution from vehicles
themselves?
In making each of its decisions regarding light- and heavy-duty vehicle
emission standards, the EPA has made decisions based on the
administrative record at hand and Congress's statutory objectives. If
confirmed, I would take care to make such decisions regarding vehicle
emissions standards in furtherance of Congress's statutory objectives,
based on the evidence in the administrative record. With respect to
federalism, the Supreme Court stressed in Massachusetts v. EPA that
States play a crucially important role in promulgating vehicle emission
standards under the Clean Air Act: each "State has an interest independent
of and behind the titles of its citizens, in all the earth and air within its
domain." To that end, "Congress has ordered EPA to protect [the States and
their people] by prescribing standards applicable to the 'emission of any air
pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicle engines, which in
[the Administrator’s] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'”
Furthermore, the Clean Air Act and other federal administrative laws give
each affected State "a concomitant procedural right to challenge the
rejection of its rulemaking petition as arbitrary and capricious," and the
Supreme Court affords States "special solicitude" to challenge the resulting
standards in court. If confirmed, I would take care to ensure that States
continue to play a central role in the administrative process giving rise to
the EPA's vehicle emissions standards.
62. The EPA promulgated phase two of the heavy-duty vehicles greenhouse gas
emissions standards in August 2016, which is within the time period for the rule to
be subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA). As Administrator, would you
support the President signing into law a CRA resolution of disapproval that would
58

 reject these new standards? What is your view of whether the EPA would be able
to re-issue any heavy­duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards given the
CRA's language that would prohibit the agency from issuing regulations that are
"substantially similar?"
Although I am familiar with the regulations on heavy vehicle greenhouse
gas emissions standards which were published in August 2016, I have not
reviewed any potential legislation which may reject these standards. If I am
confirmed, I will thoroughly review any resolution of disapproval which may
be filed pursuant to the Congressional Review Act on this issue. In terms of
re-issuing other heavyduty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards, I
would have to be briefed in detail on the regulations which have been
published, and the provisions of the Congressional Review Act which
prohibit the Agency from issuing any regulations which are substantially
similar to the initial rules in order to determine what options the Agency
may have in terms of proposing and finalizing additional regulations in this
space.
63. As you know, the Renewable Fuels Standard, as amended by Congress in
2007, requires the blending of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel into
conventional gasoline and diesel by 2022. In order to add that many renewable
fuel gallons to our fuel supply, do you agree that EPA must approve the sale of
fuels blended with greater than 10-percent renewable content?
While Congress included "applicable volume" levels in the RFS statute,
Congress also took care to expressly authorize the EPA Administrator to
reduce volumetric requirements below the statute's default levels in light of
real-world conditions from year to year. Specifically, the Administrator may
waive the statute's volume requirements if he determines "that
implementation of the requirement would severely harm the economy or
environment of a State, a region, or the United States, or "that there is an
inadequate domestic supply." The EPA already has granted such waivers
based on real-world conditions in recent years and, if confirmed, I would
take care to administer the statute in accordance with the statutory
objectives. While no statute mandates the sale of fuels blended with greater
than 10 percent renewable content, statutes do vest the Administrator with
discretion to authorize a variety of fuel blends.
64. In October 2010, EPA approved the use of a 15-percent renewable fuel blend
for cars built in 2007 or later. In the following January, EPA extended the use of
that blend to model years 2001 to 2006. Do you support the decision by the EPA
to allow 15-percent renewable fuel blends? If confirmed, would you commit to

59

 using the discretion give to you by the Clean Air Act to evaluate even higher
blends?
The EPA's 2010 and 2011 decisions to grant "partial waivers" for the use of
E15 fuel for some vehicles were premised upon the EPA's conclusions
(based on the administrative record) regarding E15's potential impacts on
exhaust emissions (both immediate and long-term), evaporative emissions,
"materials compatibility," and "drivability and operability." If confirmed, I
would take care to administer the law in accordance with Congress's
statutory objectives and the administrative record.
65. The Renewable Fuels Standard was designed to reduce dependence on
foreign oil at a time that the U.S. was importing well more than half of its demand
and concerns about energy and national security were paramount. It also was
designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.
Now that the United States supplies 76 percent of its oil domestically, do you
believe the program continues to have an important role in enhancing the energy
and environmental security of our country?
As Congress indicated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, domestic production of renewable fuel contributes to our nation's
"greater energy independence and security."
67. As you heard in my opening statement, the EPA’s record demonstrates that
strong environmental policies create economic opportunities. An undeniable
example of this is the impact of the Renewable Fuels Standard in rural America.
According to the Renewable Fuels Association, in 2015, 14.8 billion gallons of
ethanol was produced, supporting 85,967 direct jobs, while net petroleum import
dependence fell to just 24 percent, and would have been 32 percent without the
addition of domestically produced ethanol. In addition, the Association says the
use of ethanol in gasoline in 2015 reduced greenhouse gas emissions from
transportation by 41.2 million metric tons — equivalent to removing 8.7 million
cars from the road for an entire year. Do you agree that the Renewable Fuels
Standard has supported rural economies in America while allowing for the
production of cleaner transportation fuels?
I agree that the RFS's promotion of renewable fuels contributes to economic
growth in agricultural communities, and promotes the production and
consumption of transportation fuels providing many environmental
benefits.

60

 68. Some of my colleagues believe removing the corn ethanol mandate, but
keeping the advanced biofuel mandate in the RFS is the best way forward. Do
you have concerns with this approach?
The RFS statute neither expressly mandates the blending of corn ethanol
nor prohibits its blending. In enacting the RFS statute, Congress took care
to expressly authorize the EPA Administrator to reduce the volumetric
requirements below the statute's default levels, in light of real-world
conditions. Specifically, Congress authorized the Administrator to waive the
volume requirements if he or she determines "that implementation of the
requirement would severely harm the economy or environment of a State, a
region, or the United States, or "that there is an inadequate domestic
supply." The EPA already has granted such waivers based on real-world
conditions in recent years and, if I am confirmed, I would take care to
administer the statute in accordance with the statutory objectives.
69. As you may know, in recent years we have seen significant swings in
Renewable Identification Number (RINs) prices. RINs are used by the EPA to
track and ensure refineries are in compliance with the Renewable Fuel Standard.
Many small and mid-range refineries are having difficulties with the price spikes of
the RIN prices because many are buying some, if not all, their RINs off the
market. As a result, high and volatile RIN prices have had a financial impact on
these refineries. As the RFS continues to be implemented, what do you believe
the agency should do – if anything - to assist with RIN prices?
As I indicated in my testimony, the EPA's RIN framework is currently the
subject of a pending comment period. If confirmed as Administrator, I would
take care to administer the RFS program, including the RIN framework, in
accordance with Congress's statutory objectives, and based on the
evidence in the EPA's administrative record, as well as the expertise of EPA
staff and the expertise of other federal agencies relevant to the RIN
framework and affected markets. The EPA already has entered into a
"memorandum of understanding" with the CFTC, "on the sharing of
information available to EPA related to the functioning of renewable fuel and
related markets."
70. Mr. Pruitt, do you agree that the burden should be on a chemical facility
operator to show that the design and operation of the facility is as safe as possible
to protect workers and the public from explosions, fires, and other releases of
toxic chemicals?

61

 I believe that every American should be provided safe home and work
environments and people who live or work in and around chemical facilities
are no exception to that.
71. Mr. Pruitt, when there are feasible measures that chemical companies can
take to prevent explosions and fires that release toxic chemicals into surrounding
communities that can kill people, do you agree that the companies should take
such measures?
I believe that chemical companies should take actions to prevent explosions
and fires as well as other safety incidents.
72. Do you support the “not net loss of wetlands” policy? George H.W. Bush
initiated this critical policy in 1988 to protect our remaining wetlands habitat and all
of the critical ecological and economic functions it supports. It has been U.S.
Government policy ever since.
Yes.
73. A GAO report published on December 5, 2013 found that “more than 40 years
after Congress passed the Clean Water Act […] EPA reported that many of the
nation's waters are still impaired, and the goals of the act are not being met.
Without changes to the act's approach to nonpoint source pollution, the act's
goals are likely to remain unfulfilled.” If confirmed, how will you work to address
surface water quality impairments, including from non-point source pollutants?
Congress did not grant EPA authority to regulate non-point sources
because regulation of non-point sources is the regulation of land, a
traditional state authority. Instead, Congress created a planning process
under section 208 of the Clean Water Act and authorized funding for state
non-point source management plans under section 319. If confirmed, I will
implement the authorities granted to EPA by Congress.
74. You have attacked the Obama Administration’s “Waters of the United States”
regulation, objecting to “the significant negative impact such a rule would inflict on
states and the landowners within their borders.” Oklahoma’s major streams and
rivers lie within two river basins, the Red and the Arkansas, both of which flow into
other states. And Oklahoma receives most of its waters from upstream
neighbors, particularly Texas. Without national regulation, how would you
suggest that that Oklahoma’s downstream neighbors - Arkansas and Louisiana -

62

 guarantee the quality of the water that flows across their boundaries? And how
would you suggest that Oklahoma protects the quality of the water that it receives
from upstream neighbors like Texas? You appear to believe that the only parties
with an interest in water are those within a state, not downstream neighbors.
Why?
Federal jurisdiction exists over navigable water, interstate water, and
tributaries that can transport pollutants to navigable waters, and jurisdiction
over the interstate rivers that are the subject of your question is not in
dispute.
75. Communities across the country are facing the economic and health
consequences of contaminated ground water, which impacts water systems and
private well owners. How will you work to ensure communities are protected from
drinking contaminated ground water? How will you address and strengthen the
EPA’s response to groundwater contamination and ensure homeowners and
water systems are taking the steps to diagnose, treat, and remediate their
groundwater resources?
For drinking water wells that are public water systems, the requirements of
the Safe Drinking Water Act apply and EPA has authorities to provide small
systems with technical assistance through circuit rider programs. For
private well owners, the WIIN Act provided authority for EPA to support a
drinking water technology clearinghouse for well owners. If confirmed, I will
use the authorities and resources granted by Congress to help both public
water systems and well owners.
76. This question is of interest to Senator Manchin and me: We must do
everything we can to ensure that every American has access to safe and clean
water. West Virginia has had issues with chemicals like PFOA in our drinking
water as recently as last year. In fact, the State had to ship in alternative water
supplies to the city of Vienna. Martinsburg and Parkersburg also had serious
challenges. And, in 2014, the Elk River Chemical Spill left 300,000 West
Virginians without access to potable water, so I know Senator Manchin looks
forward to working with you to promote federal clean water initiatives. He also
appreciates your commitment in your meeting together to working to address
these challenges. Please outline how you intend to expand efforts to promote
safe drinking water and support the modernization of our nation’s water
infrastructure.
If confirmed, I will focus on EPA’s core missions, including, as appropriate,
use of EPA's emergency order authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

63

 I also will implement the newly revised TSCA statute to address chemicals
and will continue implementation of monitoring, review, and regulation of
contaminants under the SDWA if confirmed.
77. One of the tools within the Clean Water Act that communities can use to
restore the quality of polluted waters is through the development and
implementation of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan. The GAO also found
that funding for TMDLs has been insufficient in meeting national needs, with more
than 50% of the nation’s waters being identified as impaired. Will you advocate for
funding to match the needs for the TMDL program? How do you plan to support
and strengthen the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulatory framework?
If confirmed, I will support continued funding of State programs authorized
under section 106 of the Clean Water Act, which states use in part for TMDL
development. I also will support flexibility for state use of 106 funds to
allow states to focus on priorities such as impaired waters requiring
TMDLs. If confirmed, I also will support the continued development of tools
to help states develop TMDLs. Finally, I would note that neither GAO nor
EPA has said that 50% of the nation's waters are identified as impaired. For
example, states have assessed about 32% of rivers and streams. Of those
assessed waters, states have identified about 54% as impaired. That means
states have data showing that 17% of rivers and streams are impaired. You
cannot extrapolate the data from assessed waters to all waters because
most states target their monitoring to focus on waters they have reason to
believe are impaired, so they can target their resources where they are
needed the most.
78. You expressed great pride in your role in resolving the Mahard Egg Farm
enforcement, indicating that it demonstrates your commitment to enforce
environmental law. When was the complaint in the litigation filed, and how did that
date correspond to the date of the proposed consent decree? Based on your
responses to these questions, how well investigated and developed was this case
when you took office? Can you explain your personal involvement in either the
complaint or the consent decree?
The complaint was filed on May 23, 2011. The consent decree was entered
into on August 10, 2011. There was no filed case when I took office, but the
matter had been investigated by the Office of Attorney General, the
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, the EPA, and the State of Texas. I
authorized the filing of the case once in office. The complaint and consent
decree were handled by the attorneys in the Office of Attorney General
responsible for environmental matters.

64

 79. Mr. Pruitt, the Clean Water Act requires EPA to review and revise its national
water quality standards for pollutants based on the best available science. EPA
has proposed or finalized more stringent standards for ammonia, nutrients,
selenium, and dental offices. Do you agree that these standards must be based
on the best available science?
Under section 303(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to, every
three years "hold public hearings for the purpose of reviewing applicable
water quality standards and, as appropriate, modifying and adopting
standards." Proposed changes to state water quality standards are
submitted to EPA. Under 303(c)(3), EPA is to approve the state standards if
they meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Under section 304, EPA
establishes water quality criteria that provide guidance for state water
quality standards. The Clean Water Act directs EPA to review these criteria
documents "from time to time" except for criteria to protect public health
from pathogens in recreational coastal waters, which must be reviewed
every 5 years. Unlike the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act does
not require the use of best available science. That said, I believe it is always
important to use best available science, particularly for science documents
like water quality criteria documents.
80. Last Congress, our committee worked together to pass the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, a bill overhauling the
toothless Toxic Substances Control Act, that was signed into law earlier this year.
EPA is now responsible for implementing the law, which will require a significant
amount of resources. If confirmed, do you commit to ensuring EPA will prioritize
implementation and has sufficient resources to comply with the requirements and
timelines established by Congress?
As you are likely aware, I wrote this body a letter urging passage of the
Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. If confirmed as EPA Administrator, I will
take care that the Act is faithfully executed. A copy of that letter is attached.
81. Last year, the Toxic Substances Control Act was signed into law. There was
little doubt that this bipartisan legislation was overdue and very necessary to
protect our constituents. EPA has already announced they are fast-tracking five
chemicals under the authority of the new TSCA regime. You mentioned during
our meeting earlier this month that you were concerned with some of the more
aggressive timelines included in this legislation. Please elaborate. Please also
outline how you intend to support the Agency in ensuring they have the resources
to comprehensively implement this landmark legislation.

65

 The Lautenberg Act has a number of statutory deadlines that must be met
by the Agency when carrying out the law. If confirmed I fully intend to pick
up the process where the previous administration left off with completing
the required rulemakings and initial chemical reviews as well as subsequent
prioritizations. The updated law also allowed for updating the industry user
fees used to fund the program, a process started by the previous
administration, and one which I intend to quickly evaluate.
82. You have publicly supported the recent updates to the TSCA law. Since this
legislation pre-empts state actions, how does that align with your views on states
rights and federalism? Do you agree that federal environmental laws – such as
the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, TSCA and Clean Power Plan – also provide
certainty to businesses that have to do business across the country?
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress
the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several states, and with the Indian tribes.” Unlike the Clean Water and
Clean Air Acts which regulate pollutants TSCA regulates chemical
substances manufactured for commerce in not only all 50 states but often
globally. Federal preemption of states is appropriate when dealing with
interstate commerce issues and the Lautenberg Act’s preemption
provisions comport to my views on states’ rights and federalism for those
reasons.
83. Do you think that companies that work in the U.S. and around the world
should be able to hide chemical information here that they have given to
governmental regulators elsewhere?
The Lautenberg Act amended Section 14 of TSCA to delineate a process by
which to protect, review, and possibly make public chemical information. If
confirmed I intend to implement the law as passed by Congress.
84. In a 2005 U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs hearing, President-elect Trump publicly praised asbestos, calling it “the
greatest fireproofing material ever made.” Every major independent scientific
organization, including the World Health Organization, the International Agency on
Research for Cancer (IARC), and others, acknowledges asbestos as a known
human carcinogen with no safe level of exposure. The US EPA spent years
studying the dangers of asbestos, and ultimately attempted to ban most uses.
Just last month, the EPA redoubled its stance on the dangerous nature of
asbestos by designating it as a top-ten high-risk chemical for priority TSCA action.
If confirmed, will you heed the decades of conclusive science about asbestos or

66

 will you allow the President-elect’s personal opinion skew the EPA’s actions on
asbestos?
The Lautenberg Act has extensive requirements for risk evaluations and the
use of sound science in decisions throughout the chemical review and
potential regulatory process. If confirmed I will implement the law following
those statutory requirements.
85. You may be aware that asbestos use has drastically declined among
industries that once used it heavily, including the construction and automotive
sectors, as those industries began switching to safer substitutes. As a result, one
industry now accounts for 90% of all asbestos consumed in the U.S. — the chloralkali industry, which uses asbestos diaphragms in its chlorine manufacturing
process. The chlor-alkali industry has been the only point of public pushback
against an asbestos ban under TSCA, and they have asked the EPA to exempt
the chlor-alkali industry’s use from any regulation on asbestos. Exempting the
primary user from a restriction or ban, of course, would result in negligible impact.
Will you commit to ensuring that any regulation or restriction on asbestos does not
allow for any exemptions for the chlor-alkali industry or any other industry?
Asbestos has been identified by the EPA as a high-priority chemical that
requires a risk evaluation following the process established by the
Lautenberg Act to determine whether conditions of use of the chemical
substance pose an unreasonable risk. Prejudging the outcome of that risk
evaluation process would not be appropriate.
86. The EPA promulgated a ban on asbestos in 1989, after a decade of research,
risk evaluation, and rulemaking. In 1991, the asbestos ban was overturned by the
5th Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that the ban fell short of EPA’s
requirement to impose regulations that are “least burdensome” to industry. Under
the Lautenberg Act reforms to TSCA, the EPA is now empowered to ban and
regulate chemicals that are “toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative,” like asbestos,
without concern for industry cost or any other non-risk factor. Will you commit to
ensuring that industry concerns are not considered during the risk evaluation and
rule making processes regarding asbestos?
The Lautenberg Act requires notice and comment be provided at multiple
stages of the chemical review process including prior to publishing a final
risk evaluation and through any potential subsequent regulatory
rulemaking. This notice and comment is designed to get the input of a wide
range of stakeholders to ensure sound and inclusive rulemakings and not to
produce or dismiss comments from one particular entity or interest.

67

 87. On April 9, 2015, you wrote a letter in support of the Lautenberg Act reforms
to TSCA. In this letter, you expressed your support for the EPA: “I believe the
agency, within the boundaries of its authorities as provided by Congress, serves a
valuable mission to protect human health and preserve the environment.” During
the writing, negotiations, and passage of the Lautenberg Act, Congress — and the
sitting President — made explicitly clear their intentions that the newly
empowered EPA should swiftly ban asbestos and other deadly toxins. How will
you ensure the EPA is able to meet statutory TSCA deadlines set forth by
Congress?
I am committed to implementing the Lautenberg Act as required by law
including meeting the statutory deadlines enumerated in the law including
the required rulemakings, risk evaluations, and future chemical
prioritizations.
88. In your April 9, 2015 letter in support of the Lautenberg Act reforms, you
specifically praised the bill’s explicit protection of vulnerable populations, including
workers. Asbestos is one of the leading workplace carcinogens, responsible for
approximately half of all occupational cancer deaths, according to the World
Health Organization (WHO). During 1999 - 2014, the CDC NIOSH National
Occupational Respiratory Mortality System (NORMS) database, there were
62,956 Americans who died from mesothelioma and asbestosis. These are just
two of many deadly asbestos-related diseases. Given this data and your selfexpressed concern for protecting workers, will you commit now to ensuring the
EPA bans the import and use of asbestos under TSCA should you be confirmed?
Asbestos has been identified by the EPA as a high-priority chemical that
requires a risk evaluation following the process established by the
Lautenberg Act to determine whether conditions of use of the chemical
substance pose an unreasonable risk. Prejudging the outcome of that risk
evaluation process would not be appropriate.
89. Your home state of Oklahoma leads the nation in pesticide-related illnesses
and deaths. At a time when pesticide/herbicide usage is on the rise across the
country, how would you protect American workers, consumers, and landscapes
from the toxic effects of agricultural chemicals?
If confirmed as Administrator, I would faithfully execute the laws
administered by EPA. I would expect to be briefed by staff before taking
any action on this issue.

68

 90. What will you do to ensure EPA is conducting a transparent process regarding
pesticide regulation? Please specify how you will approach notifying the public
regarding pesticides in terms of notice of actions, publication of information
(including studies and data) in the dockets, or timely responses to requests under
the Freedom of Information Act. If you do not believe in a transparent process,
why not?
If confirmed, transparency and openness will be priorities, and I will work to
ensure that the pesticide registration process complies with all public
notice and transparency requirements under the law.
91. In June 2016 the White House Pollinator Health Task Force, which was cochaired by the EPA, released the Pollinator Partnership Action Plan. Do you
support this plan and EPA’s role in it? If not, why not? Mr. Pruitt, do you agree
that vulnerable populations, like pregnant women, infants, and children, must be
specifically considered in the study of the impacts of toxic chemicals on human
health? Why is this important?
I am not personally familiar with the report referenced in this question. In
considering the health effects of chemicals, if confirmed as Administrator, I
would expect to be briefed by EPA staff before taking action and would
work to ensure EPA followed all applicable legal requirements and made its
decisions based on sound science. If confirmed, I would also follow legal
requirements regarding the use of science and consideration of health
impacts on specific subpopulations.
92. For nearly a decade, a state-permitted coal ash disposal pit in Bokoshe, OK,
operated by a company named “Making Money Having Fun,” has caused severe
air pollution through releases of fugitive dust, which have harmed residents of the
town of Bokoshe. Encompassing 458 acres, the Making Money Having Fun pit
covers 259 acres of a former coal mine with enough coal ash to fill the 70-footdeep pit and create a miniature mountain stacked 50 feet high. The site is
permitted to rise another 550 feet over the next 20 years. By 2036, the coal ash
pit could hold 9.2 million tons of toxic waste. Since 1998, residents have
complained about the toxic dust to state regulators. Residents of Bokoshe,
particularly children, have experienced extremely high rates of asthma that are
linked to high levels of fugitive dust. In addition, residents experience elevated
cancer rates that may be linked to the dump site. In 2011, the CBS Nightly News
covered the exposure of the community to toxic dust. See
http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-town-fears-cancer-asthma-linked-dumpsite/story?id=13303440. In 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
acknowledged that there was a problem with fugitive dust at the site. Ash samples
69

 collected in Bokoshe contained elevated levels of the carcinogens hexavalent
chromium and arsenic, among other toxic metals. The Making Money Having Fun
pit is not the only unlined coal ash dump in a former mine in Oklahoma. Seven
miles west of Bokoshe, in McCurtain, OK, coal ash protrudes like an iceberg from
a water-soaked pit. McCurtain residents have complained about dust clouds,
spurring two state notices alleging violations — one in 2011 and another in 2015.
State records show seven similar coal ash dump sites permitted in the county
where Bokoshe is located.
• Did the Oklahoma AG Office ever investigate the Making Money Having Fun pit
for environmental violations?
• Did your office take any actions to require Making Money Having Fun to control
fugitive emissions at the site?
• As Oklahoma AG, what did your office do to investigate coal ash dumps in
Oklahoma for violation of environmental or health standards?
The matter you reference was handled by Oklahoma's environmental
regulators at the Department of Environmental Quality.
93. Mr. Pruitt, do you believe that all citizens in the U.S. should be equally
protected from the threats posed by the dumping of coal ash? Currently,
communities near municipal solid waste landfills and abandoned mines where
millions of tons of toxic coal ash are disposed are not protected by the new federal
coal ash rule. Do you think these communities deserve equal protection from
pollution of their air, water and communities from coal ash?
I do not question the importance of clean air, land, and water, and I believe
all Americans should be treated equally under the law.
94. Mr. Pruitt, do you think it is important for communities to know what hazardous
substances are stored and disposed in their neighborhoods? Do you think it is
important for citizens to know what hazardous substances are in their drinking
water? If so, as head of EPA, will you guarantee that all coal ash permit programs
approved by EPA will be as protective as the federal coal ash rule, including
requiring communities be kept informed regarding the condition of toxic dumpsites
near their homes and the safety of their drinking water?
As discussed in my testimony, public participation and transparency will be
among my priorities if confirmed as Administrator. I do not question the
importance of clean drinking water. It would be inappropriate for me to
prejudge an issue that may come before me for decision if I am confirmed
as Administrator. If the issue comes before me, I will ensure that the issue is
70

 fully and fairly considered with input from staff, as part of a transparent
process that seeks input from stakeholders, and that is consistent with
EPA's statutory authorities, including the coal ash provision in the WIIN Act.
95. Mr. Pruitt, environmental justice organizations have noted that 70 percent of
coal ash dumps are located in low-income, disadvantaged communities. Do you
agree that these communities deserve to know if coal ash ponds are leaking toxic
substances into their drinking water supplies? Do you agree that these citizens
have a right to expect that their drinking water be free of pollution from coal ash
impoundments?
I am not familiar with the reports referenced in the question. As my
testimony indicates, if confirmed as Administrator, I will prioritize public
participation and transparency. I believe all Americans should be treated
equally under the law.
96. In recent years, spills, leaks and collapses of coal ash impoundments have
become a greater and greater hazard to clean water. In fact, more than half of the
total toxic water pollution found in America’s rivers, lakes and streams comes from
such impoundments. Do you believe that coal ash from power plants and other
coal-burning facilities should be regulated as a hazardous pollutant, given that its
chemical composition includes lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic? What would
you do as Administrator to ensure that the kinds of ash spills recently devastating
Kingston, Tennessee and Dan River, North Carolina, never again occur,
anywhere?
I am generally aware that EPA has recently determined that coal ash from
power plants should be regulated as a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle
D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and supports that
decision. I understand provisions of the WIIN Act recently passed by
Congress and signed into law provides EPA and states additional authority
concerning the regulation of coal ash through permit programs. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure this new authority is implemented.
97. Mr. Pruitt, a growing body of scientific evidence has shown that people living
near mountaintop removal coal mines face a number of increased health risks,
including greater risk of cancer, birth defects, and premature death. If you are
confirmed as EPA Administrator, how would your agency consider these health
concerns?

71

 If confirmed, I would consider human health in accordance with EPA's legal
authorities.
98. Mr. Pruitt, do you believe that the people who live downstream from surface
coal mining operations deserve to have their sources of drinking protected from
contamination from toxic chemicals such as arsenic, selenium and lead?
I strongly believe in the importance of safe drinking water, and if confirmed
as Administrator, will work to implement EPA's statutory authorities in this
regard.
99. Mr. Pruitt, the Manhattan Project and the Cold War triggered a boom in
uranium mining in the United States. Uranium mining was carried out under the
1872 Mining Law, which did not require mining companies to clean up the mines.
Abandoned uranium and other hardrock mines litter the West. These abandoned
mines leach toxic chemicals, including uranium, radium, radon, and arsenic into
surface and ground waters that are sources of drinking water.
• Do you agree that there is insufficient funding to address the huge problem of
abandoned uranium and other hardrock mines?
• Do you agree that the 1872 Mining Law must be reformed to provide funding for
the cleanup of abandoned mines?
I have not studied the issue of whether the 1872 Mining Law should be
reformed or whether there is sufficient funding to address the cleanup of
abandoned mines. I am generally aware of questions about whether current
environmental laws inhibit the cleanup of abandoned mines by Good
Samaritans, but I would expect to be briefed by staff before considering any
actions on this topic.
100. The EPA is responsible for overseeing the cleanup of some of our nation’s
most contaminated lands. One such site is the West Lake Landfill, a Superfund
site located in Bridgeton, Missouri. This site has been contaminated since 1973
when soils were mixed with residues from the Manhattan Project and used as
daily cover in the landfilling operation. Local residents are rightfully concerned
and frustrated by delays at the EPA in determining a proper course of action for
handling this radioactive waste. In the 114th Congress the Senate unanimously
passed legislation that would transfer the remediation authority for West Lake to
the Army Corps of Engineers’ Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
(FUSRAP). FUSRAP is already successfully overseeing the cleanup of nuclear
contamination at other sites in the St. Louis area. However, as of this moment,
the authority over the West Lake site remains with the EPA. Please explain your

72

 views on the EPA’s authority and responsibility with regard to the cleanup of
Superfund sites.
• If you are confirmed as the next EPA Administrator, would you support
transferring the cleanup of sites like the West Lake Landfill to FUSRAP? Why or
why not?
• If you support cleanup authority remaining with the EPA, what concrete steps
would you pursue as Administrator to ensure that the agency is progressing
toward a real solution at the site that protects both the environment and the health
of area residents?
I am not familiar with this particular issue or the legislation that is
referenced in the question, but I appreciate the interests that residents have
in the efficient operation of the Superfund program and the clean up of
contaminated sites in their community. It would be inappropriate for me to
prejudge an issue that may come before me for decision if I am confirmed
as Administrator. If the issue comes before me, I will ensure that the issue is
fully and fairly considered, as part of a transparent process that seeks input
from all stakeholders.
101. Do you believe that if safer technologies or chemicals are available for a
facility to use, that could prevent a serious chemical disaster, that the facility
should be required to implement them to save lives, prevent injuries of workers,
first-responders, and community members, and prevent serious economic
damages from a disaster?
I believe workplace safety is very important and any potential regulatory
decisions should be carefully examined through a open and transparent
process to ensure facilities are not shifting to new chemicals or
technologies that improve safety in one area but shift risks to create new
and potentially more serious concerns.
102. Do you believe that federal agencies like the EPA have an obligation to
consult Native American tribes when actions by the agencies could impact tribal
sovereignty or the tribal trust relationship?
Yes, I believe that consultation is a sound practice that should occur
whenever possible.

73

 103. Indigenous communities are consistently targeted for energy extraction,
nuclear waste, uranium mining and/or oil and natural gas pipelines. How will you
address this moving forward?
If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by
Congress imposing obligations on me in this regard. Whenever possible, I
will consult with Indian Tribes prior to taking actions that may affect their
sovereign interests.
104. As Administrator, what steps will you take to ensure that EPA and other
federal agencies are complying with Executive Order 12989 on Environmental
Justice?
I am not familiar with what steps EPA has or has not taken undertaken to
implement this Executive Order. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that EPA
complies with all applicable Executive Orders.
105. In January 2015, EPA issued its final rule under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act defining what is a solid waste for purposes of ensuring that the
recycling of hazardous materials does not increase the risk of harm to people or
the environment, known as the “Definition of Solid Waste” or “DSW” rule. As an
integral part of the rulemaking on the DSW rule, EPA conducted an environmental
justice analysis of the rule’s protectiveness for minority and low-income
populations. EPA published its detailed environmental justice analysis report on
the DSW Rule with the final rule. Will you ensure that EPA conduct detailed
environmental justice analysis on all significant rules that may have adverse
impacts on minority and low-income populations and publish such reports along
with the final rules?
I am not familiar with the environmental justice analysis referenced in this
question. If confirmed, I will work to ensure EPA conducts the required
analysis to support its regulatory actions in accordance with applicable
statutory requirements and Executive Orders.
106. There are currently some forty pending civil enforcement actions in which
EPA is discussing possible settlement terms or pursuit of litigation. In the past
during a transition in power such pending actions have proceeded unimpeded.
Will you follow this precedent and let them progress at their own pace or will you
intervene? And, if you do opt to intervene on a case-by-case basis, what criteria
will you use to determine which enforcement cases go forward and which do not?

74

 I am unfamiliar with the specific details of the actions referenced in the
question. I would expect to be briefed by staff, in consultation with the
Department of Justice as appropriate, before taking any action.
107. Please provide a list of all financial contributors to your attorney general and
state senate campaigns, including their total donations and affiliations.
A full list of contributors to my campaigns for the state senate and attorney
general may be found at the Oklahoma Ethics Commission's websites. For
state campaign committees from 2002-2014, please use this site:
https://www.ok.gov/ethics/public/candidate.php. For 2015 to the present,
the Commission uses this site:
http://guardian.ok.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/Search.aspx?SearchTypeCo
deHook=1F26BA5E-71EA-48E4-8D50-C1013E9FE0A7. Attached is a letter
from the Oklahoma Ethics Commission regarding materials prior to 2002.
108. Why did you initially refuse a formal, independent audit of your office's
finances from the Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector as mandated by
Oklahoma law? Please provide a copy of the findings of the 2016 audit.
I did not refuse an audit. I requested that an independent auditor conduct
the audit, rather than the State Auditor. The State Auditor ultimately agreed
to not participate in the audit, and the audit was completed. The results are
publicly available.
109. Do you know Mr. Fount Holland of A.H. Strategies? If so, what is your
relationship?
I am familiar with Mr. Holland. I have no relationship with him.
110. Do you know Continental Resources CEO Harold Hamm and if so, what is
your relationship with him?
Yes. Harold Hamm is a friend.
111. You were a board member of the Rule of Law Defense Fund from November
2015 to November 2016. As a nonprofit, that organization doesn't have to disclose
its donors. But the tax filings of the Koch brothers' Freedom Partners Foundation
show that it contributed $175,000 of the group's $885,000 in 2014, nearly 20
75

 percentage the total. Was the Koch brothers' Freedom Partner's Foundation the
largest contributor to the Rule of Law Defense Fund? Did that Foundation have
any say with respect to the Fund's activities?
I have no knowledge of whether the Freedom Partners' donation was the
largest contributor to Rule of Law Defense Fund. I have resigned as
Chairman and as a board member, and those records are kept by the staff of
Rule of Law Defense Fund. RLDF's policies at the time I was a board
member were that donors did not have any say with respect to the fund's
activities.
112. The Rule of Law Defense Fund is an affiliate of the Republican Attorneys
General Association, which has received more than $2.25 million in funding from
fossil fuel interests since 2015—money that goes primarily to help elect GOP
attorneys general, according to an analysis of its activities by the Center for Media
and Democracy. What are the fossil fuel-related activities of the Fund? Has the
Fund supported or undertaken any public interest or environmental protection
activities?
To my knowledge, RLDF has facilitated policy discussion on a wide range of
issues, including many public interest and environmental protection issues,
some of which may have some nexus to matters involving fossil fuels.
113. The Huffington Post reported this week that two election fundraising groups,
Oklahoma Strong and Liberty 2.0, both linked to you spent at least $637,034 since
the start of 2015, even though you couldn’t run for re-election as Oklahoma
attorney general. These groups disbursed an average of roughly $26,543 per
month, both of which announced plans last week to shut down. Would you
describe for the Committee where these funds went? Is the Huffington Post's
characterization that these funds money went to consultants and travel correct?
And what were the specific activities conducted with these funds?
I do not have any knowledge of where remaining funds from Oklahoma
Strong PAC or Liberty 2.0 went after the entities closed. Both entities are
managed by a staff and decisions are made independently of me.
114. Has Oklahoma Strong or Liberty 2.0 taken money from the fossil fuel
industry?
This question would have to be directed to those that operate those entities.

76

 115. Has any of the special interest money gone to other Attorneys General that
may or may not sue the EPA if you are confirmed?
Without additional context to help me understand your question, I cannot
answer it.
116. Has any of this special interest money gone to any member of the EPW
Committee that will vote on your confirmation and serve as your oversight
committee in the Senate if you are confirmed?
Without additional context to help me understand your question, I cannot
answer it. In any event, I have no knowledge of the fundraising activities of
the members of this committee.
117. Before being confirmed, will you disclose who has contributed to the
Oklahoma Strong PAC and Liberty 2.0 Super PAC?
I do not personally have records of who has contributed to Oklahoma
Strong PAC or Liberty 2.0 Super PAC. That information is publicly available
on campaign finance reports, and in the possession of the staff of those
entities.
118. Please provide the dates and the name of every event you attended as
attorney general that was hosted by energy companies, energy representatives,
energy lobbyists, or political action committees (PACs) that have energy donors.
Please see attached list.
119. For each listed matter in which the State of Oklahoma has been a litigant or
petitioner against the EPA, please provide any and all documents (including any
and all written or electronic correspondence, audiotapes, electronic records,
videotapes, photographs, telephone messages, voice mail messages, e-mails,
facsimiles, daily agendas and calendars, information about meetings and/or
discussions, whether in-person or over the telephone, agendas, minutes and a list
of participants for those meetings and/or discussions, and transcripts and notes of
any such meetings and/or discussions) from the date on which your office first
began to prepare the litigation at hand, to the date of this letter, between you (or
other employees of your office) and each representative of each non-

77

 governmental entity with whom you (or your office) communicated about the
litigation.
In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous
request of that nature, I would direct you to make a request of the Oklahoma
Attorney General's Office under the Oklahoma Open Records Act.
120. Of the total outlays from the Attorney General's office during your tenure,
what percentage of your office's expenditures in Oklahoma went toward suing the
federal government or challenging federal regulations?
My understanding is that less than one percent of the Office of the Attorney
General’s budget has been for litigation involving legal challenges to federal
actions.
121. How many legal cases did your predecessor bring against industry in
Oklahoma or other states for violating federal or state environmental protections?
How many similar cases have you brought during your tenure? Please identify
each such case brought under your tenure, the nature of the violation alleged, and
the result achieved, including any penalties assessed and collected.
I do not know how many cases were brought by my predecessor. The
Department of Environmental Quality is primarily responsible for
implementing and enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma. The Office of
Attorney General has historically had a limited role, compared to the
Department of Environmental Quality, in litigating environmental
enforcement cases. Information about environmental cases attorneys in my
office have litigated during my tenure is included in this response.
122. Do the Oklahoma Strong PAC and Liberty 2.0 Super PAC continue to
operate from your state campaign headquarters in Tulsa? What is your
connection to either of these political action committees? Do any of your former
campaign employees work for either of these political action committees, if so,
who and for what period of time?
It is my understanding that both entities have been wound down. I
previously served as Honorary Chairman of Oklahoma Strong PAC, I have
not served in any similar role with Liberty 2.0. My understanding is that
there have been common vendors between Oklahoma Strong PAC and my
previous campaigns, but I am not personally aware of any contracts those

78

 vendors might have with the PACs, so your question regarding the details
of any such relationships would need to be directed to the PACs or the
vendors.
123. How much money have fossil fuel interests given to the Republican
Attorneys Generals Association during the duration of your service in the
leadership of that organization?
Other issues
Records of fundraising for that organization are kept with the staff of the
Republican Attorneys General Association, and are also disclosed on
campaign finance reports filed by that entity. I am not aware how much
money has been donated to RAGA or from whom.
124. At a time of state budget cuts in Oklahoma, why did the attorney general's
office expenditures increase from $28 million to $37.5 million under your
leadership?
The budget cuts you refer to relate to reductions in the appropriations that
each agency receives from the Legislature. I believe the Office of Attorney
General has seen its appropriation from the Legislature cut every year since
2014, culminating in an appropriation of $0 this last fiscal year. What can
lead to confusion is the fact that the appropriation from the Legislature
makes up only a portion of the Office of Attorney General's budget, and the
Office's budget and expenditures can fluctuate greatly year over year
depending on the timing of case settlements and related distributions. For
example in fiscal year 2014, the Attorney General’s Office distributed higher
than normal case settlement funds that inflated the budget over typical
levels. Conversely, that total came down in fiscal years 2015 and 2016.
Thus, fluctuations such as the one assumed by your question do not
accurately reflect the size of the Office’s budget. In my tenure as Attorney
General, the Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General streamlined legal
services for dozens of agencies, returned $29 million to the General
Revenue Fund, distributed mortgage settlement restitution funds to
impacted citizens, strengthened tobacco enforcement, and led the Office in
such a fiscally responsible manner that the Office was able to forego all $6.4
million in state-appropriated operating funds for fiscal year 2017--that in
addition to the Office having its annual appropriation cut in every prior year.
The Office of Attorney General was the only state agency to voluntarily do
this. During my tenure, the Office assumed the statutory duties of the
Human Rights Commission through our Office of Civil Rights Enforcement,
strengthened tobacco settlement enforcement efforts, and launched the
Solicitor General’s Unit. The Office also increased by one third the number
79

 of agencies, commissions, or boards which it represents. This has led to a
precipitous decline in state agency usage of costly private counsel. It is
these and other efforts that have permitted the Office to contribute
approximately $29 million to the General Revenue Fund over the last six
years.
125. Do you think the upwind or upstream states of Oklahoma would be willing to
impose more stringent environmental protections because of the adverse impacts
certain activities in their state might have on Oklahomans? Have they ever done
so on their own?
The Department of Environmental Quality has primary responsibility for
implementing and enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma. As Attorney
General, I do not have responsibility or authority for setting environmental
policy for the State and do not have the specific information at issue in this
question.
126. Do your views on federalism expand beyond the EPA? For example, were
you against the recently passed legislation that pre-empted states from labeling
GMO foods? If not, why not?
I did not have an opinion on the GMO labeling legislation, however, I view
that it is a similar matter to the Lautenberg Act reforms to TSCA which we
supported despite its pre-empting state regulation, because it provides
certainty nation-wide to regulations and often a consensus federal standard.
127. You campaigned in 2010 against a “one-size-fits-all strategy” towards
environmental protection. That phrase is sometimes used to imply that whether
American children should be adequately - or inadequately - protected against
poisonous air, water and food should be based on the political jurisdiction in which
they happen to live. Is that what you meant - that air and water health standards
should vary from state to state? Do children’s hearts or senior’s lungs vary in their
vulnerability to pollution between Oklahomans and Californians? Do you accept
the premise at the heart of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts that every
American, wherever they live, should have a science based, legally guaranteed
right to clean air, pure water and healthy food? Or do you think these decisions
should be made by local politicians based on interest group lobbying?
I strongly believe in the importance of clean air, water, and land. Many of
the environmental laws passed by Congress, including the Clean Air Act,
are based on a framework of cooperative federalism by which states

80

 administer programs authorized or delegated by EPA in order to implement
these authorities. If confirmed, I will support open and transparent
regulatory processes and base decisions on sound science in accordance
with EPA's legal authorities.
128. How do you plan to consider costs in reviewing national ambient air quality
standards? Do you agree with Justice Scalia’s opinion in Whitman v. American
Trucking Associations that it is “fairly clear that [the Clean Air Act] does not permit
the EPA to consider costs in setting the standards.”
I agree that the Supreme Court's decision in Whitman v. American Trucking
Associations confirms that the Clean Air Act does not allow the
Administrator to consider costs in setting the NAAQS.
129. Do you believe that economic or cost-benefit analysis should ever be used to
decide how much toxic pollution children should breathe or drink; many lives EPA
should save; how many children should get cancer or asthma just because they
live near a polluting factory?
As I stated in my testimony, I fundamentally believe in EPA's core mission
of protecting the American people. Environmental statutes, such as the
Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, prescribe certain instances where a
cost-benefit analysis may be considered in a rulemaking. If confirmed, I
commit to fully carry out EPA's core mission and follow the law as provided
by Congress.
130. Every year during your tenure as Oklahoma Attorney General, the American
Lung Association gave Oklahoma counties a failing grade for not meeting ozone
air pollution health standards. In fact, your home town of Tulsa is ranked 18th out
of 228 metropolitan areas for high alert ozone days. Are you concerned about the
impacts of soot and smog pollution on Oklahoma citizens? What efforts have you
undertaken as Oklahoma Attorney General to protect Oklahomans from soot and
smog pollution?
While I am concerned about children’s health, matters of the sort you
reference would be handled by Oklahoma's environmental regulators at the
Department of Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma Water Resources
Board.

81

 131. If confirmed, do you commit to protecting scientific research conducted and
funded by the EPA? Will you continue EPA’s long-standing practice of protecting
the confidentiality of health records of individual patients that participate in
scientific studies?
If confirmed, it will look forward to working with EPA’s scientists and the
thousands of other public servants at EPA. If confirmed, I would expect to
learn more about the existing practice and relevant legal authorities
concerning the confidentiality of scientific data before taking action.
132. Do you agree with this statement from NASA: “97 percent or more of actively
publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century
are extremely likely due to human activities.” If not, please explain why you do not
agree.
I have no reason to disagree with NASA’s statement, although I have not
made any attempt to independently verify its accuracy.
133. Please provide a list of all the cases, briefs and other legal actions that your
office has filed while you have served as attorney general.
Please see attached list.
134. How many legal cases have you filed, or joined others in filing, against the
EPA? Please provide a full list with the outcome of each case, including those
cases in which the court disagreed with your argument, agreed with your
argument, and those in which the court refused to hear the matter.

Enclosed is a list of the relevant cases. The relevant court opinions,
judgments, or orders are the best source of information about how these
cases were disposed.

135. It is my understanding that you currently have nine cases pending against
the EPA on behalf of the State of Oklahoma. Is this correct? Will you recuse
yourself from participation in these cases if you are confirmed? If not, why not?
Will you recuse yourself from settlement discussions? If not, why not? Will you
recuse yourself from decision making on altering or revising the regulations that
are impacted by these pending cases? If not, why not? What are the recusal
requirements of the Oklahoma Bar Association governing similar situations?

82

 Please see attached list of cases. Immediately upon my nomination, I was
walled off from all involvement in any litigation or other matters the State of
Oklahoma is pursuing involving the EPA. I have disclosed relevant matters
to the Office of Government Ethics and EPA ethics officials. As EPA
Administrator I will recuse from participation in litigation in matters in which
I represented the State of Oklahoma, unless I receive informed consent from
the State of Oklahoma and the permission of relevant federal ethics
officials. It is my understanding that recusal obligations do not extend to
regulatory rulemaking of general applicability, which does not create a
conflict under applicable rules.
136. If confirmed, do you plan on proposing or advocating for budget cuts to the
EPA’s FY 2018 budget? If so, in which programs would you reduce funding?
Would you target the EPA’s research programs? Are there areas of agency action
where you believe additional financial resources are needed?
I have no first-hand knowledge of EPA’s development of its FY 2018 budget
request. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the limited resources
appropriated to EPA by Congress are managed wisely in pursuit of that
important mission and in accordance with all applicable legal authorities.
137. It is my understanding that prior to you taking office, there was an
Environmental Protection Unit within the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office. Is
that correct?
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality is the State agency
responsible for implementing and enforcing environmental laws in
Oklahoma.
138. It is my understanding that after you took office, the Environmental Protection
Unit within the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office was eliminated. Is that
correct? Can you explain why the work of this unit was discontinued? Did the work
continue in another section of your office? If so, who continued to do that work
and for what period of time?
My office continues to employ attorneys vested with responsibilities related
to environmental protection, including the attorney who served as the lead
attorney on the previous attorney general's "environmental protection unit."
That attorney's responsibilities remain unchanged (he has been promoted,
in fact), and he pursues exactly the kind of cases that he pursued under the
previous attorney general. The only thing that changed was the internal

83

 organization of the attorneys vested with those responsibilities, because I
concluded (consistent with the practices of every attorney general in the
State's history but for my immediate predecessor) that it was not
operationally efficient to have a separate unit for such work. Thus, I chose
to house that work in the Office's Public Protection Unit and then later in the
Solicitor General's Unit. As I explained in my testimony to the committee,
my office continues to pursue environmental cases. I do not possess lists of
cases pursued my predecessor so I cannot provide the comparative that
you request. I am aware that many environmental cases take many, many
years to litigate to completion, so some of the actions that my Office
continues to pursue were initiated prior to my taking office. Please see
attached list of cases.
139. In your cases against the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, who served as
your scientific advisor for the case?
The Office of Attorney General does not have a science advisor.
140. Please provide your definition of cooperative federalism.
Cooperative federalism occurs when the federal government works
cooperatively with state and local governments to address issues of
national concern. Federalism is not cooperative when the federal
government mandates or coerces state and local governments into
effectuating federal policies.
141. Provide examples of times the EPA has intervened and required a state to
do more than the state intended and you supported the EPA’s actions.
The water quality crisis in Flint is one where EPA should have acted faster in
accordance with its legal authorities in consultation with the State.
142. You are quoted in an interview this past November saying “we hope there is
going to be regulatory rollback...Well when you look at the EPA, and the role it’s
played over the last several years, there’s going to be substantial change in that
agency.” Which EPA regulations do you believe should be rolled back? What
changes do you believe should occur in the EPA? Which EPA regulations should
be maintained?
Based on the limited information provided in the question, I am uncertain
what interview it is referring to. However, if confirmed as Administrator, I
84

 will take my responsibility to protect human health and the environment for
all Americans with the highest possible dedication and commitment. The
actions undertaken by the Office of Attorney General challenging certain
EPA regulations have been because EPA exceeded it legal authorities as
established by Congress and interpreted by the courts. Regulations that
are not on solid legal foundation and that cannot survive judicial review will
not result in environmental protections.
143. In your testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee in May 2015, you stated that the EPA “has played an important role in
addressing water and air quality issues that transverse state lines.” Since you
became attorney general, hasn’t your state sued against EPA regulations that
address cross-state air and water pollution? What are the most significant sources
of interstate pollution and what are the most important actions the EPA can take
to address them?
As my testimony indicates, I firmly believe that the EPA plays an important
role in addressing interstate water and air quality issues, but it must do so
within the bounds of its legal authority. The actions undertaken by the
Office of Attorney General challenging certain EPA regulations have been
because EPA exceeded it legal authorities as established by Congress and
interpreted by the courts.
144. Do you believe the EPA has, in your words “exceeded the constraints placed
upon the agency by Congress” by issuing the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule? If so,
please explain.
Based on the limited information in the question, the source or context of
the quote to which the question refers is not readily apparent. Twenty one
states filed a petition with the Supreme Court to review EPA’s Mercury Air
Toxics Standards. The Supreme Court held that the EPA was required to
consider costs as part of its decision whether to regulate power plants
under section 112. I agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion.
145. Do you support states taking further public health protective actions beyond
those required by EPA regulations?
Yes—if authorized under the law and not preempted or displaced by federal
law.

85

 146. Do you agree with the EPA’s legal interpretation of the Clean Water Act and
share the view the agency has federal jurisdiction over wetlands and streams that
impact the health of downstream navigable waters? If you do not agree, please
explain.
The EPA takes a broader view of its jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act
than the question suggests. A federal court appeals has held that the EPA’s
interpretation of its jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act is likely unlawful.
I agree with that court’s conclusion.
147. Would you explain the basis for your recent challenges to EPA’s finding that
it is appropriate and necessary to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and
hazardous air pollutants from power plants?
The particular matters being asked about are unclear from the limited
information in the question. As discussed in response to Questions 27 and
35, the state of Oklahoma, along with many other states, filed petitions for
review challenging EPA regulations in matters where EPA has exceeded its
statutory authority as established by Congress and interpreted by the
courts. The standard for regulating under section 111 of the Clean Air Act is
whether in the Administrator’s judgment a category of sources “causes, or
contributes significantly, to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The standard for
regulating under section 112(n) of the Clean Air Act is if “the Administrator
finds such regulation is appropriate and necessary after considering the
results of the study required by this subparagraph.” The briefs filed by the
state petitioners are the best statements of the legal arguments being made
and speak for themselves.
148. As attorney general, what types of environmental justice cases have you
pursued? Please provide a list of cases and outcomes. What is your view of
EPA’s mission in regard to environmental justice?
As discussed elsewhere in these responses, the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality is the state agency with primary responsibility for
implementing and enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma. As I testified,
I believe the Administrator plays an important role regarding environmental
justice. Attached is a list of environmental cases brought under my tenure.

86

 149. In a 2013 press statement, you stated “the evidence is clear that the current
ethanol fuel mandate is unworkable.” Would you explain what you meant at this
time?
Based on the limited information in the question, the context of the quote
referenced in the question is not readily apparent. If confirmed, my duty as
EPA Administrator would be to enforce the laws passed by this body.
150. In your joint brief against the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, it stated
“human exposure to methylmercury resulting from coal fired EGUs (Electric
Generating Units) is exceedingly small.” What is the scientific basis for this
statement? Do you continue to agree with this assessment?
Based on the limited information in the question, the source or context of
the quote to which the question refers is not readily apparent. Twenty one
states filed a petition with the Supreme Court to review EPA’s Mercury Air
Toxics Standards. The legal question in that case was a narrow one
focused on whether EPA was required to consider costs before it imposed
regulations on power plants under section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
151. The EPA is responsible for administering two of the nation's most important
infrastructure investment programs- the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water
State Revolving Loan Funds (SRFs). Unfortunately, water and sewer
infrastructure in this country continues to deteriorate and investment is sorely
needed. The American Society of Civil Engineers rates our wastewater and
drinking water infrastructure a “D.” If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that the
federal government is adequately investing in our nation’s wastewater and
drinking water infrastructure?
If confirmed, I will continue support for the Clean Water State Revolving
Loan Funds and the new Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act loan
program. In addition, I would continue to implement EPA's Integrated
Planning Framework to provide municipalities with flexibility to prioritize
actions they take to come into compliance.

87

 Senator Duckworth:
1. During your confirmation hearing, we discussed the ongoing petitions
requesting EPA initiate a rulemaking to reconsider or change the regulations
identifying refiners and importers of gasolines and diesel fuel as the entities
responsible for complying with the annual percentage standards adopted under
the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. I am specifically concerned with
harmful proposals to move the point of obligation from refiners and importers to
entities that blend renewable fuel into transportation fuel. Moving the point of
obligation from refiners to blenders would disrupt a component of the RFS
program that has worked well for the past 10 years. This harmful proposal is
opposed by a broad range of stakeholders, including organizations that represent
blenders, and it would undermine Congress’ goal in creating the RFS program by
likely decreasing the production, distribution and use of renewable fuels in the
United States.
• If confirmed as EPA Administrator, will you commit to denying any petition
requesting EPA change the RFS point of obligation, including requests to move
the point of obligation from refiners to blenders?
• Please provide all statements you have made, whether in writing or verbally,
expressing your view on the RFS point of obligation.
As I indicated in my testimony, the EPA's RIN framework is currently the
subject of a pending notice-and-comment rulemaking. If confirmed as
Administrator, I would take care to administer the RFS program, including
the RIN framework, in accordance with Congress's statutory objectives, and
based on the evidence in the EPA's administrative record, as well as the
expertise of EPA staff and the expertise of other federal agencies relevant to
the RIN framework and affected markets. The EPA already has entered into
a "memorandum of understanding" with the CFTC, "on the sharing of
information available to EPA related to the functioning of renewable fuel and
related markets."

88

 Senator Gillibrand:
1. Assuming that costs should be considered in rulemakings, do you believe that
externality costs – for example costs to society from impacts of a pollutant -should be considered in addition to the financial costs of compliance?
As I stated at the hearing, costs are important in the rulemaking process
and the Courts have recognized that important factor. Environmental
statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, prescribe when costs should be
considered in a rulemaking. If confirmed, I commit to fully follow the law as
provided by Congress.

2. New York has the toughest acid rain regulations for power plants in the nation,
but the acid rain that has affected the Adirondacks is predominately caused by
emissions from Midwestern coal-fired power plants. The scientific data collected
as part of a long-term and robust acid rain monitoring program of Adirondack
lakes and streams provides the evidence that the sulfur dioxide trading program
under the Clean Air Act has been a cost effective method to reduce sulfur dioxide
from the atmosphere. This regulatory strategy was implemented without a
detrimental economic effect. Is the regulatory strategy outlined above: strong
federal standards coupled with even stronger state standards an example of the
“meaningful role” you envision for EPA and the “useful role of the states?”
As I stated at the hearing, costs are very important in the rulemaking
process and the Courts have recognized that important factor.
Environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, prescribe when costs
should be considered in a rulemaking. If confirmed, I commit to fully follow
the law as provided by Congress.
3. EPA promulgated the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in 2011 and an
update to the rule in September 2016. How will you implement CSAPR and the
update rules?
The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is a regulation that is currently in effect
and, as such, constitutes a binding regulation. So long as that rule remains
in force, I will faithfully execute the law and enforce obligations under it.

89

 4. What strategy will you pursue to ensure upwind emissions do not affect the
ability of downwind states to meet air quality standards, per Section 110(a)(2)(D)
of the Clean Air Act?
As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, I agree that the Clean Air
Act gives EPA an important role in addressing interstate pollution issues,
among many other things. If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will exercise
my authority in this area consistent with Congress's intent in enacting the
Act. Specifically with respect to Section 110(a)(2)(D) and the "good
neighbor" obligations of Section 110, I intend to engage in a transparent
process that will allow states to have a meaningful opportunity to
understand their obligations with regard to reducing emissions that cause
or contribute to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other
states through the SIP process and to act consistent with my authority
under Section 110(c) if states fail to do so.
5. What is EPA’s role in resolving disputes regarding the transport of pollutants
between states?
As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, I agree that the Clean Air
Act gives EPA an important role in addressing interstate pollution issues,
among many other things. I strongly believe in states working
collaboratively to address crossborder environmental challenges and did so
when I was the Attorney General of Oklahoma, including negotiating a
historic agreement with my Democratic counterpart in the State of Arkansas
to reduce pollutants into the scenic Illinois River. As Administrator, I intend
to provide assistance to states as they work collaboratively in these issues.
Where the Act contemplates a more direct role for EPA, such as with
respect to Section 110(a)(2)(D) and the "good neighbor" obligations of
Section 110, I intend to engage in a transparent process that will allow
states to have a meaningful opportunity to understand their obligations with
regard to reducing emissions that cause or contribute to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance in other states through the SIP process
6. What specific actions have you taken as Oklahoma Attorney General to protect
Oklahoma’s children from exposure to air pollution?
While I am also concerned about children’s health, environmental regulation
in Oklahoma is the responsibility of Oklahoma's environmental regulators at
agencies like the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. That
agency would likely be better situated to answer your question by actions
taken by the State with regard to air pollution.

90

 7. Does state sovereignty includes a state’s authority to combat impacts to air and
water from pollution generated in other states?
Yes.
8. The EPA Clean Air Science Advisory Committee currently fills a role that The
Clean Air Act requires; this role is that of an independent scientific committee to
advise the Administrator regarding any possible revisions to the national
standards (NAAQS). That advisory committee has stated on record that the ozone
NAAQS should be more protective than the current standards. Will you follow the
advice of the advisory committee as Administrator?
I agree that the Clean Air Act assigns the advisory committee a role in
advising the Administrator regarding the promulgation and revision of
NAAQS. If confirmed as Administrator, I will follow a transparent process
that is legally and scientifically sound in all NAAQS decisions, including
consideration of the views of the advisory committee.
9. What role will the opinions of that advisory committee play in any decisionmaking you might have to do regarding review of and revisions to the NAAQS?
I agree that the Clean Air Act assigns the advisory committee a role in
advising the Administrator regarding the promulgation and revision of
NAAQS. If confirmed as Administrator, I will follow a transparent process
that is legally and scientifically sound in all NAAQS decisions, including
consideration of the views of the advisory committee.
10.In the April 22, 2016 State Petitioners’ Opening Brief that you signed seeking
to vacate EPA’s primary NAAQS of 70 ppm, you wrote that “that EPA must
consider the burden of a NAAQS.” What did you mean by the burden of a
NAAQS?
The Clean Air Act requires the Administrator to establish NAAQS that
protect public health and welfare from adverse effects, allowing an adequate
margin of safety, and to revise those standards as appropriate. This
includes establishing NAAQS at a level that is "requisite," which the
Supreme Court has interpreted as being neither more nor less stringent
than necessary to protect public health. The State Petitioners' Opening
Brief, particularly in Section II of the Argument portion, the part of the brief
to which the quotation in your question is relevant, argues that the ozone
NAAQS is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to interpret the Act in a
manner that ensures the standard is "requisite." As I have explained
elsewhere in my testimony to the Committee and in response to the
Committee's written questions, all legal positions that I took in my capacity
as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma were in an advocacy

91

 capacity. If confirmed as Administrator, I will consider all matters presented
to me with an open mind and will work to reach conclusions that are
reflected in the administrative record of each matter and that comport with
Congress's intent in enacting the Act.
11.What is the burden on individuals who are exposed to, and suffer health effects
from, air pollution if NAAQS are not strong enough to protect public health?
The Clean Air Act requires the Administrator to establish NAAQS that
protect public health and welfare from adverse effects, allowing an adequate
margin of safety, and to revise those standards as appropriate. Individuals
exposed to pollutant concentrations that are above the NAAQS may suffer
adverse health effects, the specifics of which vary depending on the
pollutant at issue.
12.How will you take into consideration the cost of pollution on human health
when taking regulatory action?
As I stated in my testimony, if confirmed, my primary goal would be to
protect the American people through lawful regulations. I also indicated at
the hearing that costs are very important in the rulemaking process and the
Courts have recognized that important factor. I understand environmental
statutes, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, prescribe when
costs should be considered in the rulemaking process. If confirmed, I
commit to fully follow the law as provided by Congress.
13.New York is very concerned with the interstate transport of ozone and
particulate matter, which cause death and illness in our state and damages our
natural resources, but also interferes with New York’s ability to meet its legal
obligation to attain the national standards set by EPA. Can ground-level ozone or
its precursor, nitrogen oxides, can be generated in one state and reduce air
quality in another state?
Yes.
14.Can fine particulate matter or its precursors, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide,
be generated in one state and reduce air quality in another state?
Yes.
15.EPA’s regulatory impact analysis enumerated numerous important categories
of mercury benefits that the agency found couldn't be monetized, such as the
impacts of mercury on non-IQ neurological impacts (including developmental

92

 delays, effects on attention/behavior, effects on motor skills, effects on memory);
cardiovascular impacts; genotoxic, immunologic, and other toxic effects.
•Do you agree that mercury has these impacts?
•Do you agree that the benefits of reducing these impacts are valuable?
•Do you think that avoided harms, like reducing childhood development delays,
need to be monetized to count as part of a cost-benefit analysis?
•Do you agree that consideration of a monetized cost-benefit analysis that does
not include these benefits because they cannot be monetized is an incomplete
picture of the costs and benefits of reducing mercury emissions?
I agree that as Administrator, it is appropriate to consider both the
monetized benefits of regulation and benefits that cannot be monetized.
Likewise, where appropriate in light of Congress's intent in enacting each
Clean Air Act provision, I agree that it is appropriate to consider both the
monetized costs of regulation and any other negative impacts, regardless of
whether those can be monetized. If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will
exercise my authority consistent with Congress's intent in enacting the Act.
16.In your comments at the EPW nomination hearing, you claimed that your
challenges to the mercury standards were entirely procedural in nature.
•In your brief challenging the original mercury standard, you asserted that “the
record does not support EPA’s findings that mercury, non-mercury HAP metals,
and acid gas HAPs pose public health hazards.” Explain how this is a procedural
claim.
•In your brief challenging the original mercury standard, you asserted that “EPA’s
EGU MACT standards are unlawful under §112(n)(1)(A).” Explain how this is a
procedural claim.
•In signing the original petitioners’ brief, were you just advocating for a client? Or
do you continue to believe all the positions argued in the original petitioners’ brief
are correct?
•In your brief challenging EPA’s supplemental finding, you asserted that “EPA
must consider costs in relation to benefits to justify its ‘appropriate and necessary’
determination.” Explain how this is a procedural claim.
•In your brief challenging EPA’s supplemental finding, you asserted that EPA’s
“‘alternative’ benefit-cost approach is also invalid because it is based on the ‘CoBenefits’ of reducing pollutants other than HAPs.” Explain how this is a procedural
claim.
•In your brief challenging EPA’s supplemental finding, you asserted that “EPA’s
refusal to consider alternative control strategies and all relevant costs, is contrary

93

 to the statute and the Supreme Court’s direction.” Explain how this is a procedural
claim.
In my testimony, when I stated that Oklahoma's challenges were procedural
in nature, I was referring to whether EPA acted consistent with law and the
record in following the procedure set forth for regulating electric utility
steam generating units under Section 112(n) of the Act. That procedure
required EPA, taking into account certain information, to determine whether
regulating the sources under Section 112 is appropriate and necessary.
17.When filing briefs for Oklahoma in the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard
litigation, Clean Power Plan litigation, and other litigation against EPA that you
joined as Attorney General, were you just advocating for a client? Or do you
continue to believe all the positions argued in your briefs are correct?
As I stated in my testimony to the committee, all legal positions that I took
in my capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma were in an
advocacy capacity. If confirmed as Administrator, I will consider all matters
presented to me with an open mind and will work to reach conclusions that
are reflected in the administrative record of each matter and that comport
with Congress's intent in enacting the Act.

18.The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was launched in 2010 to
accelerate efforts to protect and restore the largest system of fresh surface water
in the world — the Great Lakes. EPA is a critical member and lead of the GLRI
Task Force and Regional Working Group. This coordination in partnership with
the states has produced unprecedented results, with GRLI resources funding over
2,000 projects to improve water quality, protecting and restoring native habitat and
species, preventing and controlling invasive species, and addressing other Great
Lakes environmental problems. Under your leadership, will the GLRI continue to
be a top priority?
If confirmed, I will continue EPA's support for the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative, which was formally authorized by Congress in December 2016.
19.Will you support an annual appropriation of at least $300 million for the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative?
I note that $300 million has been the annual appropriation for the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative for the past several years, even though the prior
Administration proposed to cut that funding to $250 million. Three hundred

94

 million also is the Congressional authorized level of funding. If confirmed, I
will take into account that funding history and Congressional authorization
when making recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget
regarding EPA's appropriations.
20.New York is suffering from infestations of invasive species such as the
emerald ash borer and zebra mussel, which have large impacts in the state. EPA
has been an important ally in our efforts, and has a number of programs that fight
invasive species. What is your view on EPA’s role in fighting invasive species, and
do you believe EPA should commit more resources, fewer resources, or about the
same amount of resources to this issue?
I am not aware of the state of invasive species in New York. If confirmed, I
would expect to be briefed by staff on this issue before taking any action
consistent with EPA's legal authorities.
21. Does climate change have an impact on the spread of invasive species, such
as the emerald ash borer, in New York State?
I am not familiar with the state of invasive species in New York.
22.Should states continue to have the sovereign authority to set their own ballast
water discharge standards to protect the environment from the spread of invasive
species?
The issue of federal preemption of state ballast water discharge regulations
is a question for Congress, not the Administrator of the EPA. If confirmed, I
will carry out the authorities granted to EPA by Congress.
23.Approximately 200 miles of the Hudson River are classified by the EPA as one
of the largest Superfund sites in the country when 1.3 million pounds of PCBs
were discharged by two General Electric plants into the Hudson River over a 30year period. The EPA has required targeted dredging between 2009 and 2015.
Last year, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation repeatedly advised the EPA of the State’s concerns that EPA’s
remedy for the Hudson River left in place substantial levels of PCB contamination.
The EPA is slated to release its five-year review of the project this spring.
Independent and objective quantitative analyses are essential in order to
determine whether the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.
Will you agree to work with New York State to evaluate the sufficiency of the
remedy selected in the EPA’s Record of Decision?

95

 I appreciated hearing about this Superfund site in our meeting and your
staff followed up with us concerning the consent decree in this situation. If
confirmed, I intend for EPA to work collaboratively with New York State to
assess the sufficiency of the remedy. I understand that EPA intends to
provide data and analysis related to a review of the remedy to the site
related to all stakeholders, including New York, federal partners, and the
environmental community. I also understand the State and other
stakeholders will have the opportunity to present information to EPA
through that process. I confirmed, I would work to ensure that EPA's
decision will be informed by such information provided through such
process.
24.With regard to the Hudson River, will you thoroughly quantify the trends based
on all available fish, water, and sediment data and make reasonable and
conservative assumptions regarding future trends?
I believe EPA actions should be based on sound science and taken in
accordance with applicable statutory requirements, including consideration
such as those you identify.
25.As of 2014, New York had the third largest number of Superfund sites among
all states, with 87 sites. One in four Americans lives within three miles of a
contaminated disposal site that poses serious risks to human health and the
environment. In recent years, EPA has allocated approximately $250 million per
year for Superfund cleanup. The agency estimates that much greater amounts –
from $355 million to over $600 million per year – will be needed in the future.
What changes should be made to the Superfund statute to help facilitate these
important clean-up projects?
If confirmed, I would expect to prioritize the cleanup of contaminated land.
Prior to suggesting any legislative proposals, I would expect to be briefed
by staff and to receive the views of relevant stakeholders on ways to
improve the operation of the Superfund program, including any changes to
its statutory authority, if confirmed.
26.Do you support restoring the tax on petroleum products that funded the
Superfund trust fund, but was discontinued in 1995?
This is a matter for Congress to decide.
27.What would you do, if confirmed, to facilitate and improve Superfund clean-ups
in the absence of new legislation?
If confirmed, I would expect to prioritize the cleanup of contaminated land. I
would also expect to be briefed by staff and to receive the views of relevant
96

 stakeholders on ways to improve the operation of the Superfund program,
absent new statutory authority, if confirmed. I also understand the
Government Accountability Office and the EPA Inspector General also
regularly review the operation and activities of the Superfund program, and I
would expect to look to their recommendations for additional areas for
improvement, if confirmed.
28.The EPA’s Brownfields Program provides grants and technical assistance to
assess, clean up, and reuse contaminated properties. Cleaning up and
reinvesting in brownfields protects human health and the environment, reduces
blight, and takes development pressures off agricultural and other working lands.
Through fiscal year 2013, on average, $17.79 was leveraged for each EPA
Brownfields dollar and 7.3 jobs leveraged per $100,000 of EPA brownfields funds
expended on assessment, cleanup, and revolving loan fund cooperative
agreements. Unfortunately, only about 1/3 of all applicants to the program are
successful. Do you support expanding the resources for the Brownfields Program
to adequately support these communities in need?
I am aware EPA’s Brownfields program has enjoyed bipartisan support in
Congress. If confirmed as Administrator, I expect cleanup of contaminated
land to be among my priorities and to be briefed by staff about the
Brownfields programs activities and resources before taking any action.
29.In 2005, New York State, Connecticut, and the EPA and Army Corps reached
an agreement to eliminate or reduce the amount of dredged sediment dumped in
the open waters of Long Island Sound. The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and Department of State have repeatedly urged the
EPA and Army Corps not to move forward with the permanent designation of an
open water dumping site in Eastern Long Island Sound, raising concerns that the
sediment has not been properly tested and could negatively impact the economic
and environmental state of Long Island Sound, which was designated in 1987 by
Congress as an Estuary Of National Significance. Will you work to enforce NYS’s
right to protect Long Island Sound from additional open water dumping of dredged
material?
The designation by EPA of an area as a site for dredged material disposal
must follow the rigorous process set forth in the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act to ensure protection of the environment. As
I stated in my testimony before the Committee, I support following the
administrative processes set forth in law, including the National
Environmental Policy Act, to ensure that EPA's statutory responsibilities are
fully carried out.

97

 30.Will you commit to assisting the states with determining upland alternatives to
the open water disposal of dredged material?
Disposal of dredged material is not an EPA mission or responsibility. That
lies with the Corps of Engineers.
31.Will you continue the Long Island Sound Study office and ensure it receives
the necessary resources from EPA?
As I noted in my testimony before the Committee, I support collaborative
efforts to achieve environmental protection. The Long Island Sound Study
is a collaborative effort among EPA, New York, and Connecticut.
EPA's Long Island Sound Study office was authorized by Congress in 1990
under section 119 of the Clean Water Act. If confirmed, I will carry out all
responsibilities given to EPA by Congress.
32.Will you support annual appropriations of at least $10 million for the EPA’s
Long Island Sound geographic program?
If confirmed, I will seek budgetary resources to carry out all responsibilities
given to EPA by Congress. I note that the most recent appropriation for the
Long Island Sound program was about $3.9 million and the most recent
budget request was about $2.9 million.
33.How do you intend to handle existing EPA enforcement actions initiated prior
to January 20, 2017?
I am unfamiliar with the specific details of the actions referenced in the
question. I would expect to be briefed by staff, in consultation with the
Department of Justice as appropriate, before taking any action.
34.Municipal landfills that are non-compliant with the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) have created public health and environmental problems on
the island of Puerto Rico, contributing to water, ground and air contamination.
How will you address non-compliant landfills in Puerto Rico?
I am not familiar with the details of this specific issues but, if confirmed as
Administrator, I would expect to be briefed by staff about EPA's ongoing
involvement and role at these sites. If confirmed, I expect to make cleanup
of contaminated land one of my priorities. I also believe in the importance of
hearing the views of all stakeholders and would welcome the opportunity to
discuss this further.

98

 35.I have been working with EPA Region 2 to address the significant environment
and public health crisis in the Caño Martin Peña in San Juan, Puerto Rico. As we
discussed during our meeting in my office, EPA must take aggressive action to
work with the Army Corps of Engineers to clean up hazardous waste, which is
threatening the lives of children and families, who do not have full representation
in the Congress. Will you continue EPA’s aggressive push to clean up the Caño?
As discussed, I am not familiar with the details of this specific matter but, if
confirmed as Administrator, I would expect to be briefed by staff about
EPA's ongoing involvement and role at this site. If confirmed, I expect to
make cleanup of contaminated land one of my priorities.
36.If confirmed, will you visit San Juan and tour Caño Martin Peña during your
first year as Administrator?
As we discussed in your office, I would be pleased to accompany you on
this trip at a mutually convenient time if I am confirmed as Administrator.
37.What is the scientific basis for sea level rise, which we have experienced along
the coast of New York State?
If confirmed as Administrator, I will work to ensure EPA regulatory actions
are based on the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the
ever-evolving understanding of the changes in our climate and sea level
rise.
38.Do you agree with the National Climate Assessment that human-induced
climate change has already increased the number and strength of extreme
weather events?
I am aware of the broad range of views within the scientific community
regarding the relationship between human activity on changes in the
climate and any resulting impact on extreme weather events. If confirmed as
Administrator, I will work to ensure EPA regulatory actions are based on the
most up to date and objective scientific data.
39.Why did you eliminate the environmental protection unit of the Oklahoma
Attorney General’s office?
My office continues to employ attorneys vested with responsibilities related
to environmental protection, including the attorney who served as the lead
attorney on the previous attorney general's "environmental protection unit."
That attorney's responsibilities remain unchanged (he has been promoted,
in fact), and he pursues exactly the kind of cases that he pursued under the
99

 previous attorney general. The only thing that changed was the internal
organization of those vested with those responsibilities, because I
concluded (consistent with the practices of every attorney general in the
State's history but for my immediate predecessor) that it was not
operationally efficient to have a separate unit for such work. Thus, I chose
to house that work in the Office's Public Protection Unit and then later in the
Solicitor General's Unit.
40.How may staff does the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office have dedicated,
full time, to enforcing federal environmental laws in Oklahoma? Do not include in
that number staff working on lawsuits against the EPA.
The Office of the Attorney General's employs seven attorneys who
responsibilities include environmental-related matters, with a primary focus
on enforcing Oklahoma law, rather than the federal law that your question
presumes. These duties substantially include representing the
environmental agencies of the State of Oklahoma or providing counsel to
those environmental agencies in actions they determine to pursue.
41.Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is listed as an unregulated contaminant under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. PFOA was discovered in the municipal water supply
and private wells in the Village of Hoosick Falls and Towns of Hoosick and
Petersburgh, NY and in North Bennington, Pownal, Vermont. Perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) was found in Newburgh New York.
In 2014, PFOA and PFOS were found in public drinking water wells in Horsham,
Warminster, and Warrington, Pennsylvania. They were found by the federal
Environmental Protection Agency, as part of the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule. The amounts of PFOA and PFOS found in the public wells in the
area were among the 10 highest samples anywhere in the country based on the
provisional health advisory level set by EPA in 2009.
In 2009, EPA set a provisional health advisory level of .4 parts per billion. In May,
2016, EPA set a Lifetime Health Advisory level for PFOA at 70 parts per trillion.
How will you work to ensure that drinking water sources are monitored for PFOA
and PFOS, particularly in small communities under 10,000 people?
If confirmed, I will carry out the authorities and responsibilities given to EPA
by Congress. Congress did not make monitoring eligible for Safe Drinking
Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund assistance because it is considered
operation and maintenance that is local responsibility. However, Congress
recently authorized a grant program to assist small and disadvantaged
communities provide safe drinking water. Testing of unregulated

100

 contaminants is eligible for assistance under this authority. If funding is
provided by Congress, I will carry out that program.
42.How will EPA continue to evaluate the health effects of PFOA on all
communities that were exposed, in particular vulnerable populations including
infants and fetuses during pregnancy?
As I stated at my confirmation hearing, PFOA is a chemical substance that
the Agency should address quickly and I will look to continue evaluating the
health effects of PFOA through TSCA and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
43.Will you work collaboratively with other agencies, including the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the
Department of Defense, to ensure that the public is informed about the health
effects of contamination?
As I stated at my confirmation hearing I believe collaboration between
federal agencies to protect and better inform the public.
44.Will you work collaboratively with states and local governments to ensure that
information on PFOA and PFOS are communicated in a transparent and timely
manner to the public?
Cooperative federalism and collaboration between EPA and officials at the
state and local level is something I feel very strongly about and if I am
confirmed I will work collaboratively with state and local governments.
45.In the absence of federal drinking water standards, what role should EPA play
in assisting communities whose drinking water supplies have become
contaminated by PFCs or other emerging contaminants?
Congress recently authorized a grant program to assist small and
disadvantaged communities provide safe drinking water. Testing of
unregulated contaminants is eligible for assistance under this authority. If
confirmed and if funding is provided by Congress, I will carry out that
program.
46.The latest EPA survey of capital improvement needs indicates that public
water systems need to invest $384.2 billion on infrastructure improvements over
20 years to ensure the provision of safe tap water. The needs estimate generally
excludes costs associated with addressing unregulated contaminants or the costs
of replacing lead service lines. What funding level do you view as effective for the

101

 EPA Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) capitalization grant
program?
The federal government offers some financial assistance but the vast
majority of the Investments in public water systems will be made by the
public and private entities that own and operate those systems. The Safe
Drinking Water Act State Revolving Loan Funds leverage federal investment
at about 1.76 to 1. That is, a federal dollar leverages about 1.76 dollars in
loan assistance. The new WIFIA program can leverage federal investment at
a level of up to 60 to 1. I fully support the Drinking Water SRF and would
not support any cuts to that program. However, if Congress provides
additional funds I am excited by the opportunities the new WIFIA program
presents.
47. How would you use the “precautionary principle” to bring to bear cutting edge
science on emerging contaminants to ensure decisions are technically valid, while
also not delaying regulatory decisions to wait for every potential detail to be
addressed when health impacts may be occurring during the delay?
If confirmed agency decisions will be based on sound science and I will
work to protect health and the environment as expeditiously as possible.
48.What is your view on EPA’s role in overseeing response actions undertaken by
DOD at U.S. military facilities, including where PFOA, PFOS, or other PFCs may
have been released?
EPA's role is governed by the statutory and regulatory authorities, including
section 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act and the National Contingency Plan.
49. As you know, Congress passed a provision in law that exempts hydraulic
fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Do you think that hydraulic
fracturing chemicals should be exempt or do you believe that this law has merit?
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution vests in Congress the authority to
make our nation's laws and, if confirmed, as a member of the Executive
Branch I will faithfully execute my duty to implement and enforce the laws
written by Congress.

50.How will you address the disproportionate effect of environmental
contamination on low-income communities of color?

102

 If confirmed, I will expect to be briefed by staff about EPA's programs and
statutory authorities in this area.

103

 Senator Markey:
1. There is tremendous diversity across states in this country, and occasionally
states have differences of opinion on how to approach a problem. One of the roles
of the federal government is to be an arbiter among states.
• What is your philosophy on how interstate pollution conflicts should be handled?
• Should a state be able to pollute a river for which another state relies on for
drinking water?
• What is the EPA’s role in resolving interstate pollution conflicts?
• How would you determine when EPA should be involved in interstate pollution
disputes?
As I testified in the hearing, I have pursued opportunities to address
interstate environmental quality matters. One of the examples I have
highlighted is the work that Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and
I took to address an enforceable water quality standard between Arkansas
and Oklahoma. I have also discussed how Texas should be responsible
when air quality issues affect Oklahoma and my experience with that. When
negotiations among and between states breakdown EPA has a role to set
environmental standards. However, that is should be a last course of action
instead of the first. I believe environmental statutes are designed with states
as a primary implementer. Environmental statutes envision that states have
the delegated enforcement and primacy to implement and enforce
environmental statutes. Only when that is not happening or when
negotiations between and among states breakdown should EPA determine a
dispute and only after attempting to assist states negotiate a local solution.
I am fond of saying that we need national standards and neighborhood
solutions. I think that should shape the work of the EPA.
2. During the hearing, you repeatedly underscored the need to make regulation
“regular” for regulated entities.
• How do you reconcile that goal with the mission of EPA, which is “to protect
human health and the environment”?
• If confirmed as EPA Administrator will your highest priorities be to protect human
health and the environment?
As I testified, I believe in the rule of law and that process matters. I do not
view these as being contrary to EPA's mission to protect human health and
the environment.

104

 3. Please list any deductible or nondeductible charitable donations you made in
the last three years, including, for each contribution, the name of the recipient and
the amount.
I have complied with the reporting obligations from the Office of
Government Ethics and the EPW Committee.
4. As attorney general, you made Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests,
and expected a fast response. Do you commit to respond to FOIAs as quickly as
possible, if you are confirmed?
If confirmed, I will commit to tasking my staff with responding to FOIA
requests in a timely manner.
5. During Mr. Trump’s campaign, there were reports that even volunteers were
required to sign non-disclosure agreements. After his election, President-elect
Trump’s team demanded lists of career officials who worked on climate science
issues at the Energy Department and women’s and gender issues at the State
Department. It is against the law to retaliate against career officials for following
lawful policy directives. It is also against the law to interfere with career
employees communicating with Congress. I have included a summary of these
laws below.
Any suggestion that the incoming administration is targeting career officials for
retaliation simply because they worked on policies that the new President
disagrees with threatens to create a chilling effect on employees who are simply
trying to do their jobs.
5 U.S.C. § 7211, provides that: The right of employees, individually or collectively,
to petition Congress or a Member of Congress. or to furnish information to either
House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered
with or denied. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), it is a violation of federal law to
retaliate against whistleblowers. That law states: Any employee who has
authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel
action, shall not, with respect to such authority ... take or fail to take, or threaten to
take or fail to take, a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant
for employment because of. ... (A) any disclosure of information by an employee
or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences- (i) a
violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross
waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety, any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to the Inspector
General of an agency or another employee designated by the head of the agency
to receive such disclosures, of information which the employee or applicant
reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation... " In
addition, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1505, it is against federal law to interfere with a
105

 Congressional inquiry: Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any
threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or
endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of
the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department
or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of
inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or
any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress.
• If you are confirmed, will you commit to protect the rights of all career employees
of the EPA, including their right to speak with Congress?
• Will you commit to communicate employees’ whistleblower rights via email to all
EPA employees within a week of being sworn in?
If confirmed, I commit to protecting the rights of all EPA employees and will
follow the law.
6. The President-elect appears to be planning to ignore the advice he was given
by bipartisan ethics experts to divest himself from his business interests. In the
United States, he has hundreds of business interests, which include everything
from vineyards, golf courses, hotels and casinos. Some of these interests could
be impacted by EPA regulations or enforcement actions – for example, Donald
Trump’s New Jersey casino flunked air pollution tests, his hotel in Chicago has
had a Clean Water Act violation and his New Jersey Golf Club violated the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
• Do you commit to ensure that no employee of the EPA is pressured to take - or
not take - any regulatory or enforcement action or decision because that action or
decision would adversely affect business interests associated with the presidentelect or his family?
• Considering that the president-elect has stated he will not release his tax returns
anytime soon, how will you know exactly what all of the Trump family interests are
without his tax returns?
If confirmed as Administrator, I will take care that all environmental laws
enacted by Congress are faithfully executed without regard to identity of the
owners of any regulated business that might be affected by such execution
of the laws.
7. The following series of questions relate to Title 74 Section 20i of the Oklahoma
Statutes. As Attorney General of Oklahoma, you were responsible for complying
with this law. For your ease of reference, Section 20i is provided below:
74 Okl. St. § 20i (2016)
§ 20i. Legal Representation of Agency or Official of Executive
Branch--Contracts

106

 A. An agency or official of the executive branch may obtain legal
representation by one or more attorneys by means of one of the following:
1. Employing an attorney as such if otherwise authorized by law;
2. Contracting with the Office of the Attorney General; or
3. If the Attorney General is unable to represent the agency, or
official due to a conflict of interest, or the Office of the Attorney General is
unable or lacks the personnel or expertise to provide the specific
representation required by such agency or official, contracting with a
private attorney or attorneys pursuant to this section.
B. When entering into a contract for legal representation by one or more
private attorneys, an agency or official of the executive branch shall select
an attorney or attorneys from a list of attorneys maintained by the Attorney
General. An agency may contract for legal representation with one or more
attorneys who are not on the list only when there is no attorney on the list
capable of providing the specific representation and only with the approval
of the Attorney General. The list shall include any attorney who desires to
furnish services to an agency or official of the executive branch and who
has filed a schedule of fees for services with and on a form approved by
the Attorney General. An agency or official may agree to deviate from the
schedule of fees only with the approval of the Attorney General.
C. Before entering into a contract for legal representation by one or
more private attorneys, an agency or official of the executive branch shall
furnish a copy of the proposed contract to the Attorney General and, if not
fully described in the contract, notify the Attorney General of the following:
1. The nature and scope of the representation including, but not
limited to, a description of any pending or anticipated litigation or of the
transaction requiring representation;
2. The reason or reasons for not obtaining the representation from
an attorney employed by the agency or official, if an attorney is employed
by the agency or official;
3. The reason or reasons for not obtaining the representation from
the Attorney General by contract;
4. The anticipated cost of the representation including the following:
a. the basis for or method of calculation of the fee including, when
applicable, the hourly rate for each attorney, paralegal, legal assistant, or
other person who will perform services under the contract, and
b. the basis for and method of calculation of any expenses which
will be reimbursed by the agency or official under the contract; and
5. An estimate of the anticipated duration of the contract.

107

 D. Before entering into a contract for legal representation by one or
more private attorneys where the agency has reason to believe that the
case, transaction or matter will equal or exceed Twenty Thousand Dollars
($ 20,000.00) or after employment when it becomes apparent that the
case, transaction or matter will equal or exceeds Twenty Thousand Dollars
($ 20,000.00), an agency or official of the executive branch shall obtain the
approval of the Attorney General when the total cost, including fees and
expenses, of all contracts relating to the same case, transaction, or matter
will equal or exceed Twenty Thousand Dollars ($ 20,000.00). Any
amendment, modification, or extension of a contract which, had it been a
part of the original contract would have required approval by the Attorney
General, shall also require approval by the Attorney General.
E. When an agency or official of the executive branch enters into a
contract for professional legal services pursuant to this section, the agency
shall also comply with the applicable provisions of Section 85.41 of Title 74
of the Oklahoma Statutes.
F. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the Oklahoma
Indigent Defense System created pursuant to Section 1355 et seq. of Title
22 of the Oklahoma Statutes.
G. The Attorney General shall, on or before February 1 of each year,
make a written report on legal representation obtained pursuant to
paragraphs 2 and 3 of subsection A of this section. The report shall include
a brief description of each contract, the circumstances necessitating each
contract, and the amount paid or to be paid under each contract. The report
shall be filed with the Governor, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chair of the
Appropriations and Budget Committee of the House of Representatives,
and the Chair of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate.
•The Oklahoma Governor considers the Office of Attorney General a state
agency, and includes the Attorney General on a comprehensive list of Oklahoma
state agencies available at https://www.ok.gov/portal/agency.php. Do you agree
that the Office of Attorney General is an agency under Oklahoma state law? If not,
please explain.
Generally speaking, the Office of Attorney General is a state agency.
Whether it is an "agency" for purposes of any particular statute requires an
analysis of that statute.
•Subsection G of Title 74 Section 20i of the Oklahoma Statutes requires the
Attorney General to report annually on any contracts for legal representation that
state agencies have entered into with private attorneys over the course of the
prior year. For the avoidance of doubt, no exception is provided under Section 20i
for contracts for legal representation entered into by the Attorney General with
private attorneys. Do you agree that Subsection G of Title 74 Section 20i required

108

 you, as Attorney General, to report contracts for legal representation that you
entered into with private attorneys over the course of the prior year? If not, please
explain.
No. The purpose of Section 20i, as demonstrated by its text, is to place the
Office of Attorney General in the role of approving contracts for outside
counsel that other agencies wish to enter into rather than utilizing the
services of the Office of Attorney General. Subsection G requires a report
be made of contracts entered into "pursuant to this section," as Subsection
A(3) makes clear. Because the Office of Attorney General is not required to
seek permission from itself "pursuant to" that section of law, it has no
applicable contracts to report pursuant to Subsection G. The Office of
Attorney General has, however, routinely disclosed contracts it has entered
into with outside counsel, when requests for such contracts are made.
•The last fiscal year in which payments from the Office of Attorney General to
private attorneys were recorded in the report submitted pursuant to Subsection G
of Title 74 Section 20i of the Oklahoma Statutes was FY 2011. No payments from
the Office of Attorney General to private attorneys were recorded in the reports
you filed for FY 2012, FY 2013, FY 2014, or FY 2015. As Oklahoma Attorney
General, did you enter into any verbal or written contracts with private attorneys
for legal representation (whether or not such contracts provided compensation to
private attorneys) other than those listed in the reports you submitted for fiscal
years 2011 through 2015? Please provide a brief description of each such
contract you entered into, the date you entered into the contract, the
circumstances necessitating the contract, and the amount—if any—paid under the
contract (including details of any non-monetary benefits that you may have
obtained, offered, been offered, or delivered in connection with the contract).
Yes. Such information can be requested from the Office of Attorney General
through a request made pursuant to Oklahoma's Open Records Act.
•Subsection B of Title 74 Section 20i of the Oklahoma Statutes requires that—
when entering into a contract for legal representation by one or more private
attorneys—an agency or official of the executive branch must select an attorney
or attorneys from a list maintained by the Attorney General. If there are no listed
attorneys capable of providing the specific representation, then the agency must
obtain the approval of the Attorney General in order to enter into the contract.
o Please describe your process, as Attorney General, for evaluating a request
submitted by a state agency to enter into a contract for legal representation by a
private attorney not on the approved list. Please provide any documents detailing
this process (which you or your staff relied on in making such evaluations) or
indicate if this process was undocumented.

109

 o Please provide any documents submitted to you by state agencies requesting
approval to enter into a contract for legal representation by a private attorney not
on the approved list, as well as your written responses to such requests.
o Please provide any papers documenting decisions made by you or the Office of
Attorney General to enter into contracts for legal representation by private
attorneys that did not originate with requests submitted to you by state agencies.
o Do you agree that Subsection B of Title 74 Section 20i required you, as Attorney
General, to enter into contracts for legal representation only with private attorneys
included on the list referred to in that subsection unless there were no listed
attorneys capable of providing the specific representation? If not, please explain.
Such information can be requested from the Office of Attorney General
through a request made pursuant to Oklahoma's Open Records Act. With
regard to your question, because the Office of Attorney General maintains
the referenced list, and is authorized to allow representation from attorneys
not on the list, the Office of Attorney General plainly has the discretion to
allow representation from attorneys not on the list.
Did you—at any time during your term as Attorney General—enter into a written
or verbal contract for legal representation (whether compensated or pro bono) by
one or more private attorneys not included on the list referenced in Subsection B
of Title 74 Section 20i of the Oklahoma Statutes? If so, for each such contract:
o Please provide a brief description of the contract, the circumstances
necessitating the contract, and the amount—if any—paid under the contract
(including details on any non-monetary benefits that you may have obtained,
offered, been offered, or delivered in connection with the contract).
o Please indicate if you entered into the contract with a private attorney not on the
approved list because there were no attorneys on the approved list capable of
providing the specific representation or for another reason. Please describe the
process you followed in reaching a decision to enter into a contract with a private
attorney not on the approved list. Please list the attorneys on the approved list
that you considered hiring (and deemed incapable of providing the specific
representation) before deciding to enter into a contract with a private attorney not
on the approved list. For each attorney on the approved list that you considered
and rejected, please describe the deficiencies in their capabilities that led you to
reject them in favor of a private attorney not on the approved list.
Such information can be requested from the Office of Attorney General
through a request made pursuant to Oklahoma's Open Records Act.

110

 •As of January 18, 2017, neither David Rivkin, Jr. (nor any other attorney
employed by Baker Hostetler) appeared on the “Approved Attorney List   20i”
accessible on your website at
https://www.oag.ok.gov/litigation/1917atty.nsf/wfindatty.html?OpenView.
o Did David Rivkin Jr. represent the State of Oklahoma in its Clean Power Plan
case against EPA?
o To the best of your knowledge, did David Rivkin Jr. or Baker Hostetler receive
any compensation or funds from any third party in conjunction with this or any
other litigation in which it represented the State of Oklahoma on your behalf? If so,
please provide the names of any such third parties.
o Did you enter into a written or verbal contract for legal representation (whether
compensated or pro bono) with David Rivkin, Jr. of the Washington, D.C.-based
law firm Baker Hostetler? If so, please provide:
a brief description of the contract;
the date you entered into the contract;
the circumstances necessitating the contract;
the deficiencies in the capabilities of attorneys on your approved list that led you
to reject them in favor of David Rivkin Jr.—an attorney not on your approved list;
and
the amount—if any—paid under the contract (including details on any nonmonetary benefits that you may have obtained, offered, been offered, or delivered
in connection with the contract).
o Please list any contributions made by David Rivkin Jr. or any employee of Baker
Hostetler to you, your campaign, or any organizations or entities for which you
engaged in fundraising, along with the dates of such contributions.
Yes. No. Yes. Information relating to the contract can be requested from the
Office of Attorney General through a request made pursuant to Oklahoma's
Open Records Act. A full list of contributors to my campaigns for the state
senate and attorney general may be found at the Oklahoma Ethics
Commission's websites. For state campaign committees from 2002-2014,
please use this site: https://www.ok.gov/ethics/public/candidate.php. For
2015 to the present, the Commission uses this site:
http://guardian.ok.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/Search.aspx?SearchTypeCo
deHook=1F26BA5E-71EA-48E4-8D50-C1013E9FE0A7. Attached is a letter
from the Oklahoma Ethics Commission regarding materials prior to 2002.
•During your term as Attorney General, did you ever enter into an arrangement
whereby a private attorney or attorneys represented the State of Oklahoma on
your behalf on a pro bono basis while being compensated by a third party? If so,
please list the legal matters in which you entered into such arrangements, and, for
each matter, the third party or parties that compensated the private attorneys, the
amounts paid, and any monetary or non-monetary benefits that you may have

111

 obtained in connection with the arrangement. During your term as Attorney
General, did you have a process in place for ensuring that any private attorneys
that represented the State of Oklahoma on a pro bono basis did not receive
compensation from a third party for the legal services they provided to the state?
If so, please describe this process.
No. Our Office would not enter into any such agreement for representation if
it believed that the attorney was not truly working pro bono, and the Office
would seek assurances from the attorney that they were.
8. The Online Lenders Alliance is “a trade group for online payday and short-term
lenders and the companies that steer customers to them,” according to a recent
Los Angeles Times article describing actions by the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau to protect consumers from misleading advertising claims made
by certain members of the payday lending industry.
•Have you, your campaign, or any organizations or entities for which you engaged
in fundraising ever received or solicited donations from the Online Lenders
Alliance or any other trade, industry, advocacy, or other group representing
companies making payday, title, installment, or short-term loans to consumers? If
so, please list the amounts and dates of such donations or solicitations.
I am not aware of any such solicitations or donations.
•Have you, your campaign, or any organizations or entities for which you engaged
in fundraising ever received or solicited donations from any company making
payday, title, installment, or short-term loans to consumers? If so, please list the
amounts and dates of such donations or solicitations.
I am not aware of any such solicitations or donations.
•Have you, your campaign, or any organizations or entities for which you engaged
in fundraising ever received or solicited donations from any principal, senior
executive, officer, or director of a company making payday, title, installment, or
short-term loans? If so, please list the amounts and dates of such donations or
solicitations.
I am not aware of any such solicitations or donations.
•Have you, your campaign, or any organizations or entities for which you engaged
in fundraising ever received or solicited donations from any member of the Board
of Directors of the Online Lenders Alliance? For your convenience, the members
112

 of the Board of Directors of the Online Lenders Alliance, along with their business
affiliations, are listed below. For each of these individuals, please provide the
amounts and dates of their donations, or, if you unsuccessfully solicited donations
from them, the dates of such solicitations.
o Kim Anderson, Strategic Link Consulting
o Samantha Bentson, Cashland Online
o Kirk Chartier, Enova Financial
o Doug Clark, Axcess Financial
o Mark Curry, MacFarlane Group
o John Dalton, LeadFlash
o Steve Hotz, The Lead Group
o Clive Kinross, MoneyKey
o Glenn McKay, Selling Source, LLC.
o Bart Miller, Centrinex
o Greg Rable, FactorTrust, INC.
o Ken Rees, Elevate
o Walt Wojciechowski, MicroBilt
I am not aware of any such solicitations or donations.
•On June 16, 2015, you, as Attorney General, sent a letter to Richard Cordray,
Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (hereinafter, “CFPB”),
expressing concerns about certain rules the CFPB proposed to regulate payday,
vehicle title, and installment lending.
o Was the text of this letter partially or substantially drafted by the Online Lenders
Alliance or any other trade, industry, advocacy, or other group representing
companies making payday, title, installment, or short-term loans to consumers?
o Did the Online Lenders Alliance or any other trade, industry, advocacy, or other
group representing companies making payday, title, installment, or short-term
loans to consumers participate in the drafting of this letter in any other way? If so,
please explain.
o Did you ask the Online Lenders Alliance or any other trade, industry, advocacy,
or other group representing companies making payday, title, installment, or shortterm loans to consumers review or provide comments on a draft of this letter
before it was sent? If so, please provide any records related to your outreach.
o Did the Online Lenders Alliance or any other trade, industry, advocacy, or other
group representing companies making payday, title, installment, or short-term

113

 loans to consumers review or provide comments on a draft of this letter before it
was sent? If so, please provide any communications between you or your office
and any such group regarding this letter.
As far as I am aware, no as to all.
9. The Consumer Federation of America is an association of non-profit consumer
organizations devoted to advancing the consumer interest through research,
advocacy, and education.
•Did you ask the Consumer Federation of America or any other interest or
advocacy group representing Oklahoma’s consumers review or provide
comments on a draft of this letter before it was sent? If so, please provide any
records related to your outreach.
•Did the Consumer Federation of America or any other interest or advocacy group
representing Oklahoma’s consumers review or provide comments on a draft of
this letter before it was sent? If so, please provide any communications between
you or your office and any such group regarding this letter.
As far as I am aware, no as to all.
10.As you may know, Oklahoma has one of the highest usage rates for payday
loans in the country and allows payday lenders to charge consumers interest
rates of up to 390 percent on annual basis for a 14-day term loan. In November
2016, the CFPB reported that consumers in Oklahoma submitted debt collection
complaints at a rate of 36 percent (higher than the 27 percent national average).
In addition, the CFPB found that average monthly complaints from Oklahomans
increased 17 percent from August through October 2015 (higher than the national
rate of 13 percent).
•Have you, your campaign, or any organizations or entities for which you engaged
in fundraising ever received or solicited donations from the Consumer Federation
of America or any other interest or advocacy group representing Oklahoma’s
consumers? If so, please list the amounts and dates of such donations or
solicitations.
•Have you, your campaign, or any organizations or entities for which you engaged
in fundraising ever received or solicited donations from any member of the Board
of Directors of the Consumer Federation of America? If so, please provide the
amounts and dates of their donations, or, if you unsuccessfully solicited donations
from them, the dates of such solicitations.
I am not aware of any such solicitations or donations.

114

 11. You have pursued at least twenty legal actions against the EPA on clean
water, clean air and climate change related regulations, including multiple lawsuits
that are ongoing. You have additionally criticized the EPA and its scientists on a
range of scientific facts and regulations that aim to protect public health.
• Please identify EPA regulations or standards that you do support in their current
form.
• In many of your legal actions and activities as Oklahoma AG, you have
endorsed positions or signed letters that were drafted by oil and gas industry paid
lobbyists. Please identify areas in which your views differ significantly from those
of the oil and gas industry?
When negotiations among and between states breakdown EPA has a role to
set environmental standards. However, that should be a last course of
action instead of the first. I believe environmental statutes are designed
with states as a primary implementer. Environmental statutes envision that
states have the delegated enforcement and primacy to implement and
enforce environmental statutes. Only when that is not happening or when
negotiations between and among states breakdown should EPA determine a
dispute and only after attempting to assist states negotiate a local solution.
I am fond of saying that we need national standards and neighborhood
solutions. I think that should shape the work of the EPA. As I also testified
at the hearing, when it was appropriate to pursue legal actions or settlement
negotiations specifically with the oil and natural gas industry I have done
so. When considering new regulations on oil and natural gas production
and practices, I have joined other co-regulators in Oklahoma advocating
those changes.
12.Your Ethics Agreement states that for a one-year period, you “will seek
authorization to participate personally and substantially in particular matters
involving specific parties in which I know the State of Oklahoma is a party or
represents a party.”
•Why does this language assume that you “will” seek authorizations for all such
instances?
•Why is your recusal limited to a one-year period, when in some cases the
“particular matters” will not be resolved within that timeframe?
•Will you commit to recusing yourself from participating in all such particular
matters, without requesting or receiving a waiver, until the matter is fully resolved?
If not, why not?
•These ‘particular matters’ are all litigation in which your Ethics Agreement
contemplates you switching from plaintiff in your capacity as Attorney General of
Oklahoma (in which you were a principal decision-maker on the part of those
litigating against EPA), to defendant as EPA Administrator (in which you would be
the principal decision-maker on the response to the lawsuit you filed). Why do

115

 you not believe this creates an unresolvable conflict of interests that makes it
impossible for you to properly, lawfully and ethically represent the interests of the
EPA, while simultaneously upholding your professional duty to your former client,
the State of Oklahoma?
My Ethics Agreement was drafted in close consultation with ethics experts
at the Office of Government Ethics and EPA ethics officials, and reflects a
diligent effort to ensure that I seek authorization before participating in any
matter involving specific parties in which I know the State of Oklahoma is a
party or represents a party for one year after my resignation as Oklahoma
Attorney General. I believe you may be misreading the language in my
Ethics Agreement regarding prior authorization. If, during the relevant time
period, I would like to consider participating in a particular matter involving
specific parties in which I know the State of Oklahoma is a party or
represents a party, I will seek advance authorization to do so. With respect
to my professional obligations as a member of the bar, I am not permitted to
“switch sides” as counsel in any matter in which I participated as a lawyer.
The standards that would apply to me as EPA Administrator are different,
however, as I will not be representing the EPA as a lawyer if I am confirmed.
13. During the hearing, you refused to unequivocally recuse yourself from
litigation that you brought against the EPA, repeatedly stating that you would
follow the direction of agency ethics officials’ guidance in this area on a case-bycase basis. Isn’t it true that if you are confirmed, the agency ethics officials that
you are referring to will report to you, and this reporting relationship could be
perceived to have the potential to influence the guidance they provide you with? In
light of this, will you commit to the modification of your Ethics Agreement, using
your own discretion and authority to do so and prior to any vote on your
confirmation, in order to provide more clarity about your intentions for recusal
related to each matter involving specific parties in which the State of Oklahoma is
a party? If not, why not?
My Ethics Agreement was drafted in close consultation with ethics experts
at the Office of Government Ethics and EPA ethics officials, and reflects a
diligent effort to ensure I comply with all applicable federal ethics rules. I
will abide by the commitment I made in that letter. I am confident in the
former staff of the EPA and have no reason to believe they will give me
anything other than their best advice on ethics matters. Moreover, not all
officials who may consider a request for authorization to participate in a
matter will necessarily report to me. Before participating in matters
involving specific parties in which I am concerned where there may be a
question regarding my impartiality, I would expect, where they deem it
appropriate, that EPA ethics officials may consult with ethics experts at
OGE before making a recommendation.
116

 14.I am attaching a January 17, 2017 letter from Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington (CREW) and a January 18, 2017 letter from The Campaign
Legal Center (CLC), both sent to the EPA Designated Agency Ethics Official, for
the record and for your review. The CREW letter references several factors
related to your refusal to unequivocally recuse yourself from participating in any of
these matters as EPA Administrator that would cause a reasonable person with
knowledge of the relevant facts “to question his [your] impartiality in these
matters” and “to question the integrity of the agency’s programs and operations.”
The CLC letter states that “the plan described in his [your] ethics agreement is
insufficient to avoid actual or apparent conflicts of interest, and would cause
members of the public to question his impartiality in the conduct of his [your]
duties, contrary to his [your] obligation to “ensure that every citizen can have
complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government.””
•The CREW letter states that ethics regulations demand your recusal from
participating personally and substantially as Administrator in particular matters
involving specific parties in which the State of Oklahoma is a party, even if the
State of Oklahoma withdraws from the matter. Do you agree to make such a
recusal for each such matter, even if the State of Oklahoma withdraws from the
matter? If not, why not?
•The CREW letter states that “there would be serious and apparent conflicts
leading to reasonable doubts about Mr. Pruitt’s impartiality if he were to participate
in these lawsuits as EPA Administrator at any point in their lifetime. It is therefore
essential that Mr. Pruitt’s recusals last through the full course of each matter.” Do
you agree to recuse yourself for the full course of each matter involving specific
parties in which the State of Oklahoma is a party? If not, why not?
•The CREW letter states that any waiver request you might make from recusal
from any of these matters “should be denied based on consideration of the
relevant factors listed under” 5 C.F.R. 2635.502(d). Do you agree not to request a
waiver from recusal from any such matter? If not, why don’t you agree with the
analysis of the factors listed in the regulations as they apply to your past litigation
history against the Agency that CREW described in the letter should result in a
denial of the waiver request?
As discussed above, my Ethics Agreement was drafted in close
consultation with ethics experts at the Office of Government Ethics and EPA
ethics officials, and reflects a diligent effort to ensure I comply with all
applicable federal ethics rules. If confirmed, I will ask relevant federal ethics
officials to fully review the issues raised in the CREW letter and, if
appropriate, take them into account in determining the proper legal course
of action in particular instances.

117

 15.Some of the legal cases that you brought against the agency remain open, and
there may be legal decisions that require EPA regulatory action as they are
resolved; for example, a court could uphold the EPA regulation and require it to
be enforced, or a court could direct such a regulation’s revision. Since such
regulatory actions would be a direct consequence of the litigation, any conflict of
interests associated with your participating in the legal matter should extend to
any EPA regulatory or enforcement action taken as a result of court action on the
litigation. Do you agree to recuse yourself without waiver and for the entirety of
your tenure at the EPA from all such regulatory or enforcement actions that are
taken as a result of court action on a specific legal matter from which you were
recused? If not, why not?
As EPA Administrator I will recuse from participation in litigation in matters
in which I represented the State of Oklahoma, unless I receive informed
consent from the State of Oklahoma and the permission of relevant federal
ethics officials. It is my understanding that recusal obligations do not
extend to regulatory rulemaking of general applicability, which does not
create a conflict under applicable rules.
16.If you are confirmed, you will also have the ability to accomplish through
regulation as EPA Administrator what you have been seeking to accomplish
through litigation as Attorney General. For example, instead of waiting for a court
to decide whether to grant your lawsuit’s request to overturn EPA’s smog
standard, you could start to write a regulation to do just that on your very first day
on the job. Will you commit to recuse yourself from working on the revision or
elimination of any regulation regarding issues on which you have sued the EPA?
If not, why not?
It is my understanding under federal ethics rules that regulatory rulemaking
of general applicability does not create a conflict.
17. I am also attaching, for the record and for your review, the Ethics Agreement
signed by Carol Browner, former EPA Administrator during the Clinton
Administration. In her Ethics Agreement, she agreed to recuse herself from
participating “personally and substantially in any EPA matter which involves the
State of Florida as a specific party and in which I was personally and substantially
involved as Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulations, State of
Florida”. I note that this agreement was not limited to one year in duration and not
subject to waivers. I am also attaching, for the record and for your review, the
Obama Administration Ethics Pledge that each nominee agreed to uphold, which
states, in part, “I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment
participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and
substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations
and contracts.” If the response to any part of questions 2, 3 or 4 is no, please

118

 also explain why in light of the stronger Ethics Agreements and pledges made by
past EPA Administrators?
I am not familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding Ms.
Browner’s Ethics Agreement. In my Ethics Agreement, which was drafted in
close consultation with ethics experts at the Office of Government Ethics
and EPA ethics officials, I agreed to abide by federal regulations that require
my recusal from particular matters involving specific parties in which the
State of Oklahoma is a party for a period of one year after my resignation as
Attorney General, unless I receive a waiver. I will abide by the commitment
in that letter, in addition to any other obligations imposed by the Trump
Administration as well as my obligations as a member of the bar.
18. In addition to your participation in specific litigation and regulatory matters that
raise conflicts of interests, there may be pending enforcement matters at EPA in
which donors to you or your political action committees are the subjects. For
example, records indicate that Tyson Foods has been the subject of an EPA
Clean Air Act enforcement action 3 and reportedly “faces an ongoing criminal
investigation by the EPA for its release of toxic pollutants into waterways”. 4 Do
you commit to recusing yourself from participation in any enforcement matter in
which the subject is an entity that has previously made a donation to you or any of
your political action committees? If not, why not?
I will consult with relevant federal ethics officials to determine whether to
participate in a particular matter.
19. Miss. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. EPA, 790 F.3d 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015) stated
that “Decisionmakers violate the Due Process Clause and must be disqualified . . .
when they act with an ‘unalterably closed mind.’” One of your filings stated that
the agency’s record “does not support EPA’s findings that mercury, non-mercury
HAP metals, and acid gas HAPs pose public health hazards.” Do you have an
“unalterably closed mind” on the question of whether mercury and acid gas HAPs
pose public health hazards? If not, please explain your current view on this
question.
As I stated in my testimony to the committee, all legal positions that I took
in my capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma were in my
capacity as an advocate. If confirmed as Administrator, I will consider all
3

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/tyson-foods-inc

4http://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/news_home/Business/2016/08/Tyson_investors_c

all_for_envir.aspx?ID=%7B4E28BCD7-045D-489C-8A41-48A6DDDBE99F%7D&cck=1

119

 matters presented to me with an open mind and will work to reach
conclusions that are reflected in the administrative record of each matter
and that comport with Congress's intent in enacting the Act.
20. Section 301(a) of the Clean Air Act prohibits the Administrator from delegating
authority over many regulatory proceedings. To the extent that you are recused
from participating in such decisions, who could lawfully make them?
If I am recused from participating in a matter, the Federal Vacancies Reform
Act and other federal law provide a mechanism for another EPA official to
perform such functions in an acting capacity. Under current policy, the EPA
Deputy Administrator would typically serve this function.
21.Each case in which you litigated on behalf of your former client requested that
the court compel EPA to take a specific action; for example, one pending suit asks
a court to compel EPA to maintain the ozone standard at 75 ppb instead of
lowering it to 70 ppb. A court may direct EPA to take specific actions as these
cases are resolved, which will require changes to EPA regulations. Moreover, as
EPA Administrator, you could simply direct the Agency to amend its regulations to
do the very thing your lawsuit asked a court to do in the first place. This also
creates an unresolvable conflict of interests.
• Will you recuse yourself, without waiver and for the entirety of your tenure as
EPA Administrator, from any agency proceedings that a) directly result from the
resolution of or b) are related to the “particular matters” that your Ethics
Agreement agrees you should be recused from? If not, why not, and why do you
not believe that such agency proceedings would be covered by your recusal
under the applicable Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive
Branch?
As EPA Administrator I will recuse from participation in litigation in matters
in which I represented the State of Oklahoma, unless I receive informed
consent from the State of Oklahoma and the permission of relevant federal
ethics officials. I understand that this does not extend to regulatory
rulemaking of general applicability, which would not create a conflict under
applicable rules.
22. Our oceans are essential for life, and much of what happens on land
ultimately ends up in our oceans. There are many ways in which our actions on
land can both positively and negatively affect marine life and the marine
environment. Under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA), the EPA ensures that harmful substances are not dumped into the

120

 marine environment. Additionally, reducing ocean pollution is a global goal in
which the U.S. is an active participant.
• In your opinion, what role does the EPA have in protecting our oceans and the
marine life within?
• How specifically will the EPA, under your administration, ensure that harmful
manmade substances do not end up in our oceans?
• How will the EPA continue to ensure the U.S. is a leader in reducing ocean
pollution, and assisting other countries in reducing pollution that makes it into our
oceans?
If confirmed, I will carry out the authorities and responsibilities given to EPA
by Congress. These include responsibilities under the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act.
23.The greenhouse gas effect traps outgoing longwave radiation causing a
radiative imbalance of Earth, ultimately leading to the warming of the globe. The
fundamental physics of climate change are well settled.
•Are you aware of the theory of radiative balance of the Earth? Can you briefly
describe it?
•Do you understand Planck’s law and the difference between shortwave vs.
longwave radiation, and how that relates to Earth’s energy balance?
•Do you agree that disturbances to this equilibrium can warm or cool the Earth?
•Are you aware of the atmospheric circulation and oceanic currents that transport
heat from the Equator to the poles?
•Due to the complexity of the climate system, there are lag times between
changes in certain conditions, such as the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, and other observable changes, such as the temperature of the deep
ocean. If an action by the United States or world today, could positively or
negative benefit the future, say 50 to 100 years down the road, is that an
important consideration?
•Are you aware that there is less ice on land in such places as Antarctica and
Greenland than in previous years since the Industrial Revolution? What do you
believe is causing this decrease in mass of ice on land?
•To where do you believe the water from ice melt on land goes, and do you
believe that could cause global sea levels to rise?
•Do you disagree that additional greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, such
as carbon dioxide, will cause a smaller magnitude outgoing longwave radiation to
escape to space? Please explain.
•Do you disagree that the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil or natural gas, cause
carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere? Please explain.
•Do you disagree that if fossil fuels were not extracted and burned, less carbon
dioxide would be released into the atmosphere? Please explain.
•Therefore, is it possible, if not probable, that humans releasing greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere could cause more heat to be trapped by the
atmosphere? Please explain.

121

 •Do you understand that the concept address is the previous question is the basis
of human-caused climate change? Please explain.
•If not human burning of fossil fuels, how do you explain the observed increase in
carbon dioxide in atmosphere?
•What is a safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Please provide this
number in parts per million. Please explain.
•If states want to individually take measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions
will you allow them to do so? If yes, how will you support them? If not, why does
the EPA have the authority to stop a state from implementing measures to curb
greenhouse gases?
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on
the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving
understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our
changing climate. I will also adhere to the applicable statutory authorities to
fulfill EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment
consistent with the process and rule of law established by congress. I also
believe the Administrator has an important role when it comes to the
regulation of carbon dioxide, which I will fulfill consistent with
Massachusetts v. EPA and the agency's Endangerment Finding on
Greenhouse Gases respective of the applicable statutory framework
established by Congress. I believe the most effective path towards
achieving these objectives is through close partnership with the states
granting them regulatory leeway as ascribed by the rule of law.
24. If states want to individually take measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions
will you allow them to do so? If yes, how will you support them? If not, why does
the EPA have the authority to stop a state from implementing measures to curb
greenhouse gases?
Yes, states are free to pursue regulatory measures to address greenhouse
gas emissions under state legal authority.
25.A recently released report by Solar Power Rocks gave Oklahoma a grade of
“F” and found that the “solar industry has been stymied at every turn.”
•The length of return for a 5-kilowatt solar array installation is 16 years in
Oklahoma, compared to the just 4 years in Massachusetts. Why do you believe
that is the case?
•In 2014, the Oklahoma legislature passed legislation putting a surcharge on
rooftop solar. Do you support this? Why or why not?
I am not familiar with “lengths of return” or the potential differences in such
lengths of return between states, and thus have no opinion as to the cause

122

 of any such differences. I am not familiar with the legislation you reference,
and have formulated no opinion with regard to the wisdom of it as a matter
of Oklahoma policy.
26. Last week, in his nomination hearing, Rex Tillerson dismissed the importance
of America being energy independent. If you are confirmed as EPA Administrator,
you will oversee tailpipe standards for cars and SUVs and the renewable fuel
standard, two important polices that support energy independence by reducing oil
consumption in America. In your view, should achieving energy independence be
a priority for America?
As Congress indicated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, domestic production of renewable fuel contributes to our nation's
"greater energy independence and security." Our energy independence will
best be achieved by an "all-of-the-above" strategy without the government
picking winners and losers. Setting motor vehicle emissions standards is a
complex task that requires careful balancing of several competing factors.
Setting such standards also requires coordination with NHTSA, which
continues to administer the CAFE program. I will consider the relevant
factors carefully and will coordinate closely with NHTSA on any motor
vehicle emissions standards that will be addressed during my tenure if I am
confirmed as Administrator.
27.A cornerstone of science is impartiality and following the facts. This is what has
allowed the United States to be a world leader in science.
•Do you commit to allowing EPA scientists to do their jobs and not interfere with
their science?
•How will you ensure that scientists, such as those employed by EPA, are allowed
to continue their work unimpeded by potential challenges due to their topic of
research?
•Do you agree that only scientists and technical experts, not impeded by political
influence, should edit scientific work? If not, why?
•In your opinion, what is the role that a public affairs office has in editing any
potential publically available statement or information?
•Do you pledge that your all of your work as EPA Administrator will be guided by
the best available science?
•Do you commit to maintaining EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy regardless of
research area?
If confirmed, it will be a privilege to work with EPA scientists and the
thousands of other public servants at EPA. I have no first-hand knowledge
of the role of the public affairs office as referenced in the question and, if
confirmed, I expect to learn more about the office. Indeed, I fully believe, as
former EPA administrators have stated, that sound, objective science must

123

 serve as "the backbone" of EPA actions. I have no first-hand knowledge of
the specific scientific integrity policy referenced in the question and, if
confirmed, I commit to thoroughly reviewing the policy and to follow
applicable laws and federal guidance regarding scientific integrity,
information quality, and transparency.
28.It has been reported by Wired that President-elect Trump plans to undo
President Obama’s June 2013 Climate Action Plan, and remove materials from
EPA websites. While we understand revising policies from administration to
administration, the reports of removing environmental data from EPA websites is
troubling. Will you commit to keeping environmental records, data, and records
provided as part of previous rulemakings publically available on the EPA’s
website?
•Will you commit to ensuring that any current publically available dataset remains
available and easy to access? If not, please explain.
•Will you ensure that all data interpretation tools available on the EPA website
remain publically available and easy to access? If not, please explain.
I have not been briefed on any changes to the EPA website following the
transfer of power from the Obama Administration to the Trump
Administration. That being said, I commit to reviewing the materials that are
included on the EPA site if I am confirmed.
29.I have heard that EPA’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget request may include a 17%
budget cut. . I am troubled by this reported planned cut to EPA budget and urge
you to reconsider this drastic move. Will you maintain robust funding for scientific
research at EPA, and to ensure that environmental data continues to be
collected?
I have no first-hand knowledge of EPA’s development of its FY 2018 budget
request. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the limited resources
appropriated to EPA by Congress are managed wisely in pursuit of that
important mission and in accordance with all applicable legal authorities.
30.Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) now provides more than half of the United States
oil output. In 2000, fracking provided less than 2% of America oil. This has
dramatically changed the energy landscape of the United States.
•Do you believe that hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) is the cause of the increased
frequency and strength of earthquakes in Oklahoma? Please explain.
•As Attorney General have you taken any actions related to earthquakes caused
by fracking?
•In May 2016, you testified that the decline in the coal industry was due to the
price drop of natural gas and not EPA regulation. Do you stand by this statement?
If not, why have your views changed?

124

 •Do you believe that fracking can contaminate drinking water supplies? Please
explain.
Scientists from the state level up to the National Research Council have
found that the act of hydraulic fracturing itself poses very little risk of
creating seismic events. Seismicity concerns related to the oil and natural
gas industries are more commonly tied to the underground injection of
wastewater which is regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act. As I stated in
my testimony, in Oklahoma the Corporation Commission has jurisdiction
over this matter and I have been in contact with that agency that has taken
very meaningful steps to address seismic concerns. I believe that there is
not one single factor that has precipitated the decline in the coal industry
alone. Finally, I agree with EPA's Dr. Thomas Burke who, following the
release of EPA's final hydraulic fracturing water study, reiterated that the
Agency only found a small number of confirmed cases of contamination.
With well over one million wells that have been hydraulically fractured in the
United States the evidence found by EPA suggests a very low likelihood of
drinking water contamination from hydraulic fracturing or its associated
activates.
31.This past December, the EPA released a report entitled, “Hydraulic Fracturing
for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking
Water Resources in the United States.” The EPA found scientific evidence that
fracking activities can affect drinking water supplies.
•Have you read this report?
•What steps will you take as Administrator to reduce the possibility of drinking
water contamination due to hydraulic fracturing activities?
•Of those chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing activities, the EPA found that
nearly 200 might pose a public health risk. Will you commit to continuing to study
these identified chemicals and the potential health risks, as well as identify other
potential harmful chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing activities?
I am familiar with the report and if confirmed as EPA Administrator I will
faithfully execute my legal duties to administer laws as authorized by
Congress including the Safe Drinking Water Act. Understanding and
studying risks to local communities is something central to the role as
Administrator and I will continue to study potential risk using the Agencies
many tools.
32.Do you agree the Clean Air Act health benefits significantly outweigh costs?
For example, a peer-reviewed study found that in 2010 alone the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, which reduced fine particulate pollution and ozone, avoided
more than 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, prevented 13 million
missed workdays, and avoided 3.2 million missed school days by children.

125

 Based on the limited information provided, it is unclear as to the specific
study referenced. However, as I indicated in my testimony, I am incredibly
proud of the progress the U.S. has made to provide public health
protections and improve our environmental stewardship while also growing
our economy. If confirmed, I commit to continue this progress and protect
the American people through commonsense and lawful regulations.
33.According to the Consumer Reports National Research Center survey
completed in June 2016, 84 percent of Americans feel that automakers should
continue to improve fuel economy for all vehicle types. About three-quarters of
survey respondents specifically indicated that the U.S. government should require
vehicle manufacturers to improve the fuel economy of their vehicles over time. As
you may know, when the government stopped increasing fuel economy standards
for two decades in the mid-1980s, vehicle fuel economy stopped improving. Now
that we are once again making progress, what will you do to make sure that
vehicle fuel economy continues to improve as Americans expect?
While the EPA regulates emissions under the Clean Air Act, it is true that
Congress vested authority to regulate fuel economy through the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards" framework set forth originally in
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Congress vested responsibility for
the CAFE program in the Department of Transportation, not the EPA;
accordingly, I take no position on Congress's policy decision on this
subject, or on the Department of Transportation's administration of the
CAFE program. If confirmed as EPA Administration, I would administer the
Clean Air Act in accordance with the terms of the Act, including Congress's
statutory policy objectives, and would do so on the basis of the factual
record in any given proceeding.
34.After conducting its Midterm Evaluation of fuel economy standards for model
years 2022 through 2025, the EPA determined that automakers were wellpositioned to meet the standards at lower costs than previously estimated. In fact,
the EPA chose to retain the current standards to provide regulatory certainty for
the auto industry despite a technical record suggesting that standards could be
made more stringent.
Among the technologies that the EPA considered in reaching its determination
that fuel economy standards could be readily achieved were so-called “off-cycle
technologies.” Off-cycle technologies are innovations such as more efficient air
conditioning through enhanced window glass that reduces solar load, stop-start
systems, solar panels, active aerodynamics, and adaptive cruise control. By
reducing the energy demands placed on the engine, these technologies serve to
improve fuel economy and reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon pollution. Vehicle
manufacturers may claim “off-cycle credits” for these carbon pollution-reducing
technologies which may have benefits not adequately captured as part the

126

 standard fuel economy testing procedures.
Americans in Massachusetts, Ohio, Tennessee, North Carolina, Michigan, Indiana
and across the country have good-paying jobs that depend on vehicle
manufacturers continuing to demand these innovative technologies.
In your hearing, you explained how important it is for the EPA to consider jobs and
economic impacts as part of its analysis and decision-making. If confirmed, would
you support the “off-cycle credit” mechanism included that the EPA included in its
fuel economy standards—a mechanism that drives American innovation and job
growth? If not, please explain your position.
If confirmed, my job as Administrator would be to administer the statutes
that Congress has enacted, including the statutory objectives that Congress
incorporates into those statutes. If Congress chooses to enact legislation to
promote certain technologies, such as "off-cycle" vehicle technologies,
then those statutory priorities would fall within the EPA Administrator's
responsibility. If confirmed, I would look forward to working with Congress
on any such statutory proposals that it legislates.
35.Is the carbon dioxide that comes out of car tailpipes physically or chemically
different from the carbon dioxide that comes out of power plant smokestacks? If
so, how?
As a matter of law, Congress elected to enact different statutory frameworks
for regulating emissions from stationary sources and mobile sources: Title I
of the Clean Air Act for the former, Title II for the latter. As the Supreme
Court recognized in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2013), these two
frameworks have significant differences.
36.Would the impact on the climate system of carbon dioxide from power plants
be any different from that of carbon dioxide from tailpipe emissions? If so, in what
way?
As noted above, Congress elected to enact different statutory frameworks
for regulating emissions from stationary sources and mobile sources: Title I
of the Clean Air Act for the former, Title II for the latter. As the Supreme
Court recognized in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2013), these two
frameworks have significant differences.
37.Do you agree that the power sector and the transportation sectors each
contribute at least a quarter of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions?

127

 According to the EPA (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sourcesgreenhouse-gas-emissions), in 2014 electricity generation accounted for
30% of total greenhouse gas emissions (quantified in terms of metric tons
of CO2 equivalent), and transportation accounted for 26%.
38.Congress established protections for the air in national parks and wilderness
areas in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1977. The quality of the air in New
England parks like Cape Cod national seashore and Acadia national park suffers
from pollution blown in from elsewhere. Last summer you joined other Attorneys
General in comments objecting to the EPA’s amendments to the Regional Haze
Rule. Given your previous objection, if confirmed as EPA administrator, what will
you do to fulfill the 40-year directive from Congress to protect and restore the air
quality of national parks like Cape Cod and Acadia even if it requires states from
outside the region to reduce their air pollution?
As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, I agree that the Clean Air
Act gives EPA an important role in addressing interstate pollution issues,
among many other things. All legal positions that I took in my capacity as
Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma were in my capacity as an
advocate. If confirmed, I will consider all matters presented to me with an
open mind and will work to reach conclusions that are reflected in the
administrative record of each matter and that comport with Congress's
intent in enacting the Act.
39.The 1977 Clean Air Act amendments also provide a role for federal land
managers in protecting the air quality of national parks and wilderness areas. If
confirmed as EPA Administrator, how will you make sure that EPA honors the
obligations federal land managers have under the Clean Air Act and that their
expertise is incorporated into the policies necessary to achieve the goal of natural
air quality?
I am confirmed, I will exercise my authority consistent with Congress's
intent in enacting the Act. This includes acting transparently in a manner
that takes into account the views of the federal land managers where the
Act calls for their views, such as in assessing visibility impacts from new
major sources in the preconstruction permitting process.
40.When Congress passed the original Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) in 2005,
“inadequate domestic supply” and “severe harm” to the economy were the only
conditions under which the general waiver authority allowing the EPA to waive the
RFS could be invoked. Despite this clear direction from Congress, in its 20142015-2016 final Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO), EPA used “available
refueling infrastructure” as a condition to waive the standard even though
Congress expressly rejected it. Do you believe that EPA’s use of this reason for
128

 granting a waiver in the 2014-2015-2016 RVO is consistent with Congressional
intent and the law?
As I stated at my hearing, I believe the EPA Administrator should use its
waiver authority judiciously and not to undermine or question the
commitments made by Congress when enacting the RFS.
41.The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) is one of our country’s most important
tools to reduce carbon pollution from the transportation sector. The 2007
amendments to the RFS included increasing volumes of cellulosic and advanced
biofuels. If confirmed, will you increase the blending targets for cellulosic and
advanced biofuels, including biodiesel, given Congressional intent? What role can
EPA play to facilitate the expansion of cellulosic and advanced biofuels, including
biodiesel?
Section 211(0) of the Clean Air Act contains enumerated tables of applicable
target volumes of renewable fuel, specifically cellulosic and advanced, for
calendar years 2006 through 2022. As I indicated in my nomination hearing,
it is not the job of the Administrator of the EPA to do anything other than
administer the program according to the intent of Congress. If confirmed, I
will work to administer this program in accordance with statute and
Congressional intent.
42.In response to an Inspector General report, the EPA announced in August that
it would update the estimates of carbon pollution reduction from renewable fuels.
If confirmed as Administrator, will you commit to completing this update and using
the best available commercial and scientific information, including a recent USDA
report on the emissions profile of renewable fuels?
I have not had an opportunity to review the referenced report, but, if
confirmed, I will review it.
43.In a response to a Renewable Fuels Standard question, you stated during the
hearing that “we have less consumption today.” Please provide the annual U.S.
consumption of gasoline since 2005 as well as forecasts for 2017 and 2018. Is
U.S. consumption of gasoline declining or increasing?
In the course of my nomination hearing, I referenced market conditions that
have changed since 2005, when the initial RFS program was enacted. When
the program was updated in 2007, Congress could not predict how the

129

 market conditions would further change, from decreased consumption to
more fuel-efficient vehicles, and therefore provided the Administrator with
the ability to waive certain provisions contained in the Act. As I stated at my
hearing, I do not believe the EPA Administrator should use this waiver
authority to undermine the commitments made by Congress when enacting
the RFS.
44.EPA set out to reduce mercury, arsenic, and other toxic chemicals from coal
and oil-fired power plans through a rule that you sued to block. Power plants
account for half of the mercury emissions in the United States and EPA’s Mercury
and Air Toxins Standards rule could save up to 11,000 lives and save $90 billion
on health costs each and every year across the United States.
•The World Health Organization states that mercury has a toxic effect on humans,
and in particular poses a significant threat to child development. Do you agree
that mercury is a toxic substance and exposure to it should be limited? Please
explain.
•Most people are exposed to mercury from eating fish and shellfish. Do you agree
that we should take appropriate steps that reduce the amount of mercury in fish
and shellfish? Please explain.
As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, mercury is appropriately
regulated as a hazardous air pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act. If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will regulate under Section 112 in
a manner that is consistent with Congress's intent in enacting that
provision. I will also faithfully administer other federal statutes that regulate
mercury to the extent that they are under my jurisdiction, including the
Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable
Battery Management Act of 1996, the Clean Water Act, the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
45.Donald Trump recently bemoaned “you're not allowed to use hair spray
anymore because it affects the ozone." Hairspray is still available for sale, just
without the chemical responsible for the ozone hole.
The ozone hole was first discovered in the mid-1980s. The world quickly came
together to address the ozone hole through the Montreal Protocol. Actions were
taken prior to confirmation of the hypothesis that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) due
to human emissions, that chemical Donald Trump alluded to in his statement, to
address the ozone hole. The treaties to address the ozone hole were the first
universally ratified treaties in the history of the United Nations.
•Do you agree with the overwhelming scientific evidence that CFCs are the cause
of the historic depletion of the ozone layer? If not, why not?
130

 •Do you consider the “Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer” to be a success? If not, why not?
•Considering the success of the world coming together to solve an environmental
problem in that instance, do you believe that such a framework could be used as
an example to solve other global environmental problems? If not, why not?
I consider the Montreal Protocol to be a successful example of the world
coming together to solve an important environmental problem and that the
Montreal Protocol could serve as an example to the President as he
exercises his foreign affairs powers and to the Senate as it considers
ratification of any treaty that may come before it.
46.Mr. Pruitt, you have repeatedly sued EPA to overturn regulations that seek to
protect Americans from the effects of soot, ozone, greenhouse gases, mercury,
arsenic and other air pollutants. These toxic air pollutants are often blown east
from large industrial and energy sources in the Midwest, particularly impacting air
quality and public health from Maine and Massachusetts to the Smoky Mountains.
•EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which provides independent
scientific advice to EPA on its air pollution standards, said that ozone causes a
“decrease in lung function, increase in respiratory symptoms, and increase in
airway inflammation.” Do you agree with this scientific conclusion? Please explain.
•EPA projected that its final Cross State Air Pollution Rule would avoid up to
34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 non-fatal heart attacks and 400,000 asthma
attacks – every year. Do you agree with this conclusion? Please explain.
•The EPA concluded that the health effects associated with fine soot particles
include premature death, more ER visits and increased frequency of chronic
respiratory disease. Do you agree with this conclusion? Please explain.
As I stated in my testimony to the committee, all legal positions that I took
in my capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma were in my
capacity as an advocate. If confirmed as Administrator, I will consider all
matters presented to me with an open mind and will work to reach
conclusions that are reflected in the administrative record of each matter
and that comport with Congress's intent in enacting the Act.
47.Lead is not just a problem in Flint, Michigan, but all over the United States
including Oklahoma. In your capacity as Attorney General of Oklahoma, what did
you and your office do to prevent childhood lead exposure?
While I am concerned about children’s health, matters of the sort you
reference would be handled by Oklahoma's environmental regulators at the

131

 Department of Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma Water Resources
Board.
48.During your confirmation hearing before the Environment and Public Works
Committee, in response to a question, you indicated that you did not know if there
is a safe level of lead. Scientific experts at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization, among other leading
scientific bodies have repeatedly warned of the dangers of lead, specifically to
children, concluding that there is no level of lead exposure that is safe.
•Do you agree that exposure to lead is dangerous and that no level of exposure
should be considered safe?
•If confirmed, will you commit to making reducing childhood lead exposure a
priority?
•What specific strategies will you implement to reduce lead exposure?
•Will you advocate for more funding for the programs that reduce lead exposure
risk, especially in children?
I have not myself reviewed the scientific studies correlating blood lead
levels to impacts in children. However, it is my understanding that neither
EPA nor CDC have identified a "safe" level of exposure, but instead have
adopted levels appropriate for action under their specific statutory
authorities. If confirmed I will carry out EPA's authorities to reduce
exposure to lead, including exposures by children.
49.The EPA is tasked with implemented the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
and ensuring that the drinking water supply for many Americans is safe. Given the
Flint, Michigan drinking water crisis, many Americans that took clean water for
granted are now being faced with questions about a basic necessity.
•The Water Infrastructure Improvement for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016, or WIIN
Act, passed Congress was signed by the President, and became public law on
December 12, 2016. Will you commit to, as expedient as practicable,
implementing the changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act?
•The human-caused drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan has highlighted the
widespread concern of lead in drinking water pipes across the nation. Additionally,
nearly 4 million Americans may be unknowingly drinking unsafe water. Are you
aware of how many public water systems in the United States have issues with
lead in drinking water above safe levels?
•If a public official knowingly exposes their community to dangerous levels of
contaminants, such as lead, should that official be held accountable for such
actions? What do you think are acceptable punishments for such an action?
•If confirmed as EPA Administrator, what will you do to ensure that communicates
across America have safe drinking water that is not contaminated with lead?

132

 If confirmed I will fully implement the changes to the Safe Drinking Water
regulatory requirements made by the WIIN Act, including the changes to the
notification requirements relating to lead levels in drinking water. If funding
is provided, I will also implement the assistance programs authorized in that
Act. I also will fully implement the existing authorities under the SDWA,
including, as appropriate, EPA's authority to take emergency action. If
confirmed I will seek a briefing from EPA staff on the number of public water
systems that are not in compliance with the SDWA Lead and Copper Rule. I
am unaware of EPA authorities to punish individuals other than to seek the
resignation of responsible EPA officials, such as the resignation of the
former Regional Administrator of EPA Region 5 who resigned after her
failure to act upon information regarding the lead levels in the Flint water
system became public.
50.The updated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires that EPA evaluate
the risks to "potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations" and take action to
protect these subpopulations from all identified risks. Do you commit to follow this
statutory requirement?
Yes.
51.As Oklahoma Attorney General, you have consistently advocated for the rights
of states in the area of environmental protections. Will you apply the preemption
provisions in TSCA in a manner that is consistent with the statute and your prestated philosophy when it comes to state leadership on environmental protection
matters?
As I stated in my letter to Senators Inhofe and Boxer from April 9, 2016, I
believe the Lautenberg Act ensures states have an important voice at the
table and I will apply the law as enacted by Congress.
52.The new law greatly increases transparency and provides EPA with an
obligation to protect against unjustified claims of confidentiality by industry. Do
you commit to uphold the bill’s statutory requirements in this area?
As I stated in my letter to Senators Inhofe and Boxer from April 9, 2016, I
believe public dissemination of information about chemicals is critical to
ensure public health and safety is upheld. In my view the Lautenberg Act
struck a common sense balance between protecting confidential business
information and informing the public and I intend to apply the law as
enacted by Congress.

133

 53.Do you agree that transparency is important to meaningful public participation
in EPA’s work on chemicals under TSCA? Do you commit to increasing
transparency by fully implementing the provisions in the new law to prevent
unjustified claims of confidentiality by industry?
As I have previously stated I believe the Lautenberg Act struck an
appropriate balance between protecting confidential business information
and informing the public and I intend to apply the law as enacted by
Congress.
54.One of the reasons Congress was able to agree on a major re-write of TSCA
was because of the fundamental agreement we made to clarify the law to ensure
that costs could not be considered when EPA decided whether a chemical was
safe or what level of a chemical was safe. Costs could only be a factor when
deciding what type of regulation to require to meet that safe standard. Do you
continue to support this approach? Would you oppose any effort to change this
reformed approach to regulation?
If confirmed I intend to faithfully execute all provisions of the Lautenberg
Act as enacted by Congress.
55.Nearly three decades ago, President George H. W. Bush attempted
unsuccessfully to ban asbestos. Asbestos is banned in 55 countries across the
globe and the World Health Organization says, quote, “all forms of asbestos are
carcinogenic to humans”. More than 30 Americans die each day from diseases
like asbestosis and cancer caused by asbestos. Yet, in his 1997 book, The Art of
the Comeback, President-elect Trump stated, that asbestos is, quote, “100
percent safe, once applied” and that he, quote, “believe[s] that the movement
against asbestos was led by the mob.” Do you agree with Mr. Trump that
asbestos is 100 percent safe once applied or that the movement against asbestos
was led by the mob?
Asbestos has been identified by the EPA as a high-priority chemical that
requires a risk evaluation following the process established by the
Lautenberg Act to determine whether conditions of use of the chemical
substance pose an unreasonable risk. Prejudging the outcome of that risk
evaluation process would not be appropriate.

134

 56.In 2015, I released a reported entitled, “Failing the Grade: Asbestos in
America’s Schools.” 5 Asbestos is still found in schools across America, and the
true scope of the problem is still hard to ascertain. More than 53 million American
children and six million American adults spend large portions of their days in
school buildings that may contain dangerous environmental hazards. My report
laid out recommendations on how to address the findings of the report.
•Millions of students attend schools that may have asbestos and this is clearly a
widespread problem. How would the EPA under your direction, if confirmed, begin
to assess the true scope of the problem?
•Will you commit to raising awareness among students, parents, teachers, and
other employees about persistent asbestos hazards in school buildings? If not,
why not?
•Do you support periodic reporting requirements for schools to report their
progress related to the management and abatement of asbestos? If not, why not?
•Do you support additional funding for enforcement actions for schools that do not
follow the law and may be exposing children to asbestos? If not, why not?
•Do you support public access to information about where asbestos can be found
in products, school buildings, and elsewhere to empower the public to avoid
preventable asbestos exposures? If not, why not?
•Do you support providing consumers with access to current information about
asbestos-containing products? If not, why not?
•Do you support schools that are known to have asbestos updating their reports
of where asbestos is located within a school? If not, why not?
•Do you support states communicating information to the EPA on their progress
with implementation of asbestos response plans? If not, why not?
•Do you support continued research and outreach to improve public awareness of
the danger of asbestos exposure? If not, why not?
If confirmed I will take the responsibility of protecting human health and the
environment very seriously and in accordance with the legal authorities
established by Congress. EPA has identified asbestos as a high-priority
chemical and is now required to set the scope of review as well as conduct
a risk evaluation of the conditions of use of the substance. Without
prejudging that review process any conditions of use of asbestos or any
other chemical substance that pose an unreasonable risk are required to be
addressed under the law and appropriate communication of chemical
reviews as well as transparency in the process is an important aspect of the
law as passed by Congress. In addition to the Lautenberg Act, in 1986,
Congress enacted the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA)
and then later amended the act in 1990 to modify EPA’s school asbestos
remediation program. While I have not assessed the appropriateness of
periodic reporting requirements, if confirmed I intend to use the authorities
granted to the Agency by Congress under TSCA and other statutes to
5

http://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2015-12-Markey-Asbestos-Report-Final.pdf

135

 assess potential dangers as well as inform and protect the public as
appropriate.
57.Last year entitled, “The ABCs of PCBs: A Toxic Threat to America’s Schools.”6
Although Congress and the EPA banned the production and most uses of PCBs
in 1979, the toxic chemical is still found in many schools across this country. In
addition, my report laid out six recommendations.
•Since up 30% of students may be exposed to PCBs, this is a widespread
problem. How would the EPA under your direction, if confirmed, begin to assess
the true scope of the problem?
•PCBs are found within caulk and fluorescent light ballast in American schools.
How would you encourage the removal of PCB-containing materials? Since these
ballast are nearing the end of their useful life, EPA has said that it “recommends
all PCB-containing FLBs be removed from lighting fixtures”. Would you support
the promulgation of a regulation under section 6(e) of TSCA that updates EPA’s
current regulations for PCBs and includes a requirement that all PCB-containing
ballast be removed from schools and daycare facilities? If not, why not?
•There are multiple local education agencies and schools that have been seeking
the advice and assistance of the EPA in dealing with PCB issues. Will you commit
to assisting these agencies and schools and ensuring that the guidance EPA
provides across all Regions of EPA is consistently and proactively provided? If
not, why not?
•Do you support a requirement that each each school that was built or retrofitted
between 1950 and 1979 (and therefor may contain PCBs) undergo a survey (to
be administered by the local educational agency) in order to determine whether
and where PCBs may be located within a school? If not, why not?
•Do you support a requirement for recordkeeping by state and local educational
agencies of testing for, response to, and remediation of PCB hazards in schools?
If not, why not?
•Do you support the EPA updating its testing guidance to encourage inspections
of all schools built or retrofitted between 1950 and 1979, and improve its efforts to
proactively and consistently communicate testing guidance to states, local
education agencies, and schools with potential PCB hazards? If not, why not?
•Do you support the EPA developing guidance regarding the means by which
parents, teachers, and employees should be notified of potential PCB hazards by
schools and daycare facilities, including the manner in which such hazards should
be described? If not, why not?
•Do you support the development and provision of updated guidance on the
proper remediation of PCBs by EPA for schools, daycare facilities and other
entities to use? If not, why not?
•Do you support the EPA proactively and regularly sharing best practices and
other information outreach to states and school districts, and enforcement
6

https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016-10-05-Markey-PCB-ReportABCsofPCBs.pdf

136

 activities, related to PCB hazards in schools and daycare facilities across all EPA
regions? If not, why not?
•Do you support EPA regional offices increasing their outreach to states and local
education agencies to make them aware of available EPA’s PCB regulations,
guidance and resources? If not, why not?
•Do you support the EPA updating its current guidance on PCB hazards in
schools to incorporate lessons learned from previous remediation projects and
best available science? If not, why not?
•Do you support schools having detailed plans on how a school specifically plans
to ensure the proper removal of PCBs before starting a PCB remediation project?
Please explain.
•Do you support the authorization and appropriations of money for the testing for,
response to, and remediation of PCB hazards and other environment hazards in
schools? Please explain.
Addressing the issues of possible harmful exposures to chemicals in
schools is an issue I would take very seriously if confirmed as EPA
Administrator. While protecting children from exposure to chemical
substances of concern it is important to have all the facts and ensure that
an action does not create unintended consequences or put children at
potentially greater peril via risk shifting or the possibility of remedial actions
resulting in greater exposure to a substance. While I would not prejudge a
regulatory outcome under the TSCA or any other law, I will work
collaboratively with state and local governments and citizens to address
issues and ensuring EPA regions are consistent and performing their
legally required duties will be a priority if confirmed.
58.The Environmental Working Group reported that Oklahoma led the nation in
pesticide-related illness and deaths between 2000 and 2010 based on data from
the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 7
•Are you aware that your state, Oklahoma, leads the United States in pesticiderelated illness and deaths? Why do you think this is the case?
•Recent reports have suggested that the increased use of pesticides is linked to
the rapid decline in the bee population. What is your understanding of the science
explaining the cause of the decline in bees in the United States?
I am not personally familiar with the report referenced in this question or
generally the rate of pesticide usage in Oklahoma. I am generally aware of
the important role bees play as pollinators, but it is unclear from the
information provided in the question what specific reports are being
discussed. If confirmed as Administrator, I would expect to be briefed by
EPA staff before taking action on this issue and would work to ensure EPA
7

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2016/12/pruitt-s-home-state-leads-nation-pesticide-illnesses-anddeaths

137

 followed all applicable legal requirements and made its decisions based on
sound science.
59.Racial minorities and low-income communities are disproportionately affected
by environmental pollution, siting of waste disposal facilities, and other industrial
pollution causing activities. In many instances, the combination of poverty and
race as well as lax enforcement and oversight of industrial activities results in
worsened health outcomes by these communities.
•How will you address environmental justice and equity for minority and poor
communities through EPA programs?
•What will you do to improve health equity as administrator of the EPA?
•What are your plans on reducing toxic pollution and disproportional burden of
pollutants in communities of color?
•What will you do to increase enforcement and oversight in communities that are
bearing the burden of environmental hazards?
•In your confirmation hearing, you committed to making environmental justice a
top priority. If confirmed, will you commit to dedicating funding to assist minority
and poor communities with resources and technical assistance to better engage
with the EPA and industry about pollution activities and concerns occurring in their
communities?
•What will you do to improve the EPA’s office of Civil Rights to ensure that the
EPA is in compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
•Will you uphold and make a top priority throughout the agency’s work, Executive
order 12898, which requires federal agencies to make “achieving environmental
justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its
programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations.”
•Do you vow to ensure that environmental justice activities throughout the agency
remains focused on poor and minority communities?
•EPA recently developed the agency’s EJ2020 action Agenda to better deliver on
its historical promises of reducing disparities in environmental protection. Will you
utilize and uphold this guidance and procedures outlined in this document
throughout the work of the agency? Please explain.
As I testified, the Administrator plays an important role regarding
environmental justice. If confirmed, I would work to faithfully execute the
laws EPA is responsible for administering, in order to protect human health
and the environment for all Americans. If confirmed, I would expect EPA to
operate in an open and transparent manner, consider the views of
stakeholders as appropriate, act based on sound science, and follow the
laws as established by Congress, including the Civil Rights Act. I am
personally unfamiliar with the operations of EPA's Office of Civil Rights and
details of current indicatives regarding environmental justice referenced in
the question, but I would expect, if confirmed, I would be briefed by staff
about ongoing programs and activities before taking any action.

138

 60.If you are confirmed, do you commit not to direct the cessation of or otherwise
impede the investigations or actions of the EPA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance? If not, why not?
I am unfamiliar with the specific details of the actions referenced in the
question. I would expect to be briefed by staff, in consultation with the
Department of Justice as appropriate, before taking any action.
61.For each year since 1995, please provide information regarding the State of
Oklahoma’s environmental enforcement efforts. Specifically, for each year,
please provide a list that includes:
•A brief description of each environmental enforcement action (including
investigations and enforcement proceedings) initiated by the AG’s office, including
the date the action was initiated, the name of the subject of the action, and the
nature of the action and environmental violation that led thereto.
•The annual budget of the Office of Environmental Enforcement, both in dollar
terms and as a percentage of the AG’s annual budget.
•The number of employees in the Office of Environmental Enforcement and in the
AG’s office writ large.
•A description of each environment enforcement action (including investigations
and enforcement proceedings) that was closed, including a description of the
resolution of the matter, whether a fine or penalty was levied (and if so the amount
of such fine or penalty), whether non-monetary remedies were required (and if so,
what), and whether a criminal prosecution was initiated in the matter (and if so
what the resolution of the prosecution was).
In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous
request of that nature, I would direct you to make a request of the Oklahoma
Attorney General's Office under the Oklahoma Open Records Act.

139

 Senator Merkley:
1. In an interview with The Oklahoman in 2015, you were talking about
Oklahoma’s environmental lawsuit against poultry producers who were polluting
the Illinois River basin, and you said that in your view, regulation through litigation
is the wrong approach. However, you have been highly active in bringing lawsuits
against the EPA, whose regulations typically incorporate information gathered as
a result of the kind of extensive stakeholder outreach that you seem to value.
What have your experiences in suing the EPA taught you about how to lead the
agency?
My experiences suing the EPA have taught me the value of ensuring that the
EPA acts lawfully so that the regulations it promulgates are actually put to
work protecting the environment, rather than being invalidated by courts.
2. The legal actions that you have brought against the EPA suggest that you feel
the agency does not have the expertise or skill to make adequate assessments
about how to maintain environmental standards. How do you propose to improve
the EPA’s capabilities so that the agency can achieve its goals in the proper
manner?
The legal challenges I have brought have been to protect the interests of
Oklahoma. If confirmed, I expect to learn more about EPA's workforce needs
and ensure that the Agency is working towards achieving its goals in a
proper manner.
3. You have said that the “American people are tired of seeing billions of dollars
drained from our economy due to unnecessary EPA regulations”. In a poll taken in
December 2016 of 2,000 supporters of President-elect Trump, 64% of Trump
voters support maintaining or increasing the federal budget for environmental
protection and conservation. 78% of the Trump voters said they supported air
pollution regulations generally, and 61% said companies should be required to
reduce their carbon emissions. These are the people who supported Donald
Trump, the man who nominated you for this position. Do you share the view of the
majority of Trump voters and support maintaining or increasing the federal budget
for environmental protection and conservation? Do you share the view of the
majority of the President-elect’s supporters that companies should be required to
reduce their carbon emissions?

140

 If confirmed as Administrator, I look forward to working with President
Trump to achieve his environmental priorities using the tools authorized by
Congress and respectful of the rule of law.
4. Several states, including Oregon, Washington, and California, have taken steps
to regulate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Would you, as the leader of
the EPA, attempt to undermine state-led attempts to combat climate change?
I respect and believe the states have a very important role in setting and
implementing environmental standards that reflect the needs, challenges
and expectations of their local communities. Congress established a clear
process by which states may set more stringent standards subject to the
approval of the Administrator and based on the specific request made and
the corresponding record submitted. If confirmed and if I receive any such
requests, I will consider them consistent with applicable statutory
framework established by Congress.
5. The EPA produces a wide range of scientific documents. Are you committed to
allowing EPA scientists the right of last review of all reports, executive summaries,
press releases and websites related to purely science-based documents?
If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with EPA scientists and the
thousands of other dedicated public servants at EPA who have chosen to
devote their careers to improving public health and our environment.
Scientific documents are critical to EPA's decision-making and I commit, if
confirmed, to ensure EPA scientific documents follow applicable laws and
federal guidance on scientific integrity, information quality, and
transparency.
6. Are you committed to transparency at EPA? If so, will you commit to making
sure that EPA data is proactive made available to the public, consistent with
privacy and confidential business information laws? Will you ensure that all data
and data interpretation tools that are currently on EPA websites continue to be
publicly available, and, if they become out of date, are archived in an accessible
manner?
Yes, I am committed to transparency at EPA. I commit to making sure that
EPA data is made available to the public consistent with privacy and
confidentiality laws, and I will ensure that all EPA tools currently available to
the public will remain accessible to the public and will be archived
appropriately.

141

 7. How would you incorporate independent science in your decision making?
If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with EPA scientists and the
thousands of other dedicated public servants at EPA who have chosen to
devote their careers to improving public health and our environment. I
believe EPA decision-making should be based on sound, independent
science, and if confirmed, my decision-making will follow applicable laws
and federal guidance on scientific integrity, information quality, and
transparency.
8. Are you familiar with the scientific integrity policies of the EPA? Can you
commit to adhering to EPA’s scientific integrity policies?
If confirmed, I expect to learn more about EPA's scientific integrity policies
and I commit to follow applicable laws regarding scientific integrity.
9. How will you work with the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy to ensure that the work of scientists at the EPA, and scientists that provide
input to the EPA, is free from political and financial influence?
If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with EPA scientists and the
thousands of other dedicated public servants at EPA who have chosen to
devote their careers to improving public health and our environment. I have
no first-hand knowledge of the EPA's consultation with the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy and, if confirmed, I would expect to
learn more about EPA's work with the office. Indeed, EPA actions must be
based on sound, objective science. I commit, if confirmed, to follow
applicable laws and federal guidance on scientific integrity, information
quality, and transparency.
10. Pacific coast shellfish aquaculture is estimated to be a $278 million industry,
but over the last decade, oyster growers have struggled to maintain yields
because the water in the hatcheries is becoming too acidic for oysters to survive.
The oceans are becoming more acidic because they are absorbing more and
more CO2 from the atmosphere. The impact of this acidification on oyster farming
has been documented in the scientific literature. On numerous occasions, you’ve
expressed skepticism about climate change, but there is no doubt in the minds of
these shellfish growers about the reality that increased CO2 levels are threatening
their livelihoods. As EPA Administrator, how would you address this issue?

142

 If confirmed, I will implement the laws that EPA is charged to administer.
Under section 304 of the CWA EPA establishes water quality criteria to
protect aquatic life, including shellfish. Certain EPA programs also include
authorities that can support projects that may benefit the shellfish industry,
including the National Estuary Program under section 320 of the CWA, the
Long Island Sound programs under section 119 of the CWA, and the
Chesapeake Bay program under section 117 of the CWA. Finally, section
319 of the CWA can support programs and projects to reduce runoff that
may impact oyster beds..
11. There are many groups within the Christian community -- and groups from
other faiths -- in the United States who agree with the overwhelming scientific
consensus that climate change is a danger to our country, and who strongly
support taking action to mitigate the causes and impacts of climate change. For
example, the Southern Baptist Convention made a statement in 2007 saying that
Christians are responsible for caring for creation, and emphasized the importance
of acting to prevent climate change. The President of the Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, has also issued a statement echoing these views. As EPA
Administrator, would you share the view that, in the interest of caring for creation,
that action should be taken to prevent climate change?
I believe we can grow our economy, harvest the resources God has blessed
us with, while also being good stewards of the air, land, and water by which
we have been favored. If confirmed, I will work to advance the mission of
EPA to protect human health and the environment within the framework
established by Congress.
12. The EPA is required to follow the best available science in its rule-making
process. Given that every major scientific institution in the United States agrees
with the position that the warming trend over the past century is due to human
activity, do you have any reason to disagree with the position of every major
scientific institution in the United States? Please explain.
I agree EPA's rulemaking process must be based on the best available
science. However, I have no first-hand knowledge of the specific institutions
or findings referenced in the question. If confirmed, I commit EPA's
rulemaking process will be based on the best available science and will
follow applicable laws and federal guidance on scientific integrity,
information, and transparency.

143

 13. 97% of publishing climate scientists support the idea the climate change is
real and man-made. You are an attorney, but have questioned the reality of
climate change. Do you currently agree that climate change is real and manmade? If not do you believe the 97% of climate scientists that do hold that view
are wrong, or lying?
The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of human
activity on our changing climate, and what to do about it, are subject to
continuing debate and dialogue. If confirmed, I will make sure the agency's
regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific
data.
14. What scientific organizations do you personally trust when it comes to the
science of climate change? Please explain why you trust any organization(s) you
list.
If confirmed as EPA Administrator, I will adhere to the applicable statutory
authorities to fulfill EPA’s mission to protect human health and the
environment and will base my decisions on sound science, including advice
provided by agency experts and advisory personnel.
15. Below is a list of statements from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change’s Fifth Assessment Report. For each statement, please indicate your
agreement or disagreement and explain your reasoning: • “Warming of the climate
system is unequivocal.”
• “The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have
diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have
increased.”
• “The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide
have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years.”
• “Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial
times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use
change emissions.”
• “The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon
dioxide, causing ocean acidification.”
• “The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the
atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750.”
• “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the
observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
• “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and
changes in all components of the climate system.”
• “It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and
that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century

144

 as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further
decrease.”
• “Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century.... [T]he rate
of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971 to 2010 due to
increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice
sheets.”
• “Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions.”
There is a diverse range of views regarding the key drivers of our changing
climate among scientists. I believe that these differences should be the
subject of robust and open debate free from intimidation. If confirmed, I will
continue to encourage an honest debate on our changing climate, the role
of human activity, our ability to measure the degree and extent of human
activity, and what to do about it. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any
regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific
data. I will also adhere to the applicable statutory authorities to fulfill EPA’s
mission to protect human health and the environment consistent with the
process and rule of law established by congress.
16. Are you aware that each of the past three decades has been warmer than the
one before, and warmer than all the previous decades since record keeping
began in the 1880s? This trend is based on actual temperature measurements.
Do you believe that there is uncertainty in this warming trend that has been
directly measured? If so, please explain.
I am aware of a diverse range of conclusions regarding global temperatures,
including that over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has
been a leveling off of warming, which some scientists refer to as the
"hiatus." I am also aware that the discrepancy between land-based
temperature stations and satellite temperature stations can be attributed to
expansive urbanization within in our country where artificial substances
such as asphalt can interfere with the accuracy of land-based temperature
stations and that the agencies charged with keeping the data do not
accurately account for this type of interference. I am also aware that
'warmest year ever' claims from NASA and NOAA are based on minimal
temperature differences that fall within the margin of error. Finally, I am
aware that temperatures have been changing for millions of years that
predate the relatively short modern record keeping efforts that began in
1880.

145

 17. Is there a scientific basis, based on the best available science and the weight
of scientific evidence, for revoking or revising the finding that greenhouse gases
endanger public health and welfare?
To my knowledge, there is nothing currently pending before the EPA that
would require I take any additional actions on the Endangerment Finding on
Greenhouse Gases and if there were, it would not be wise to prejudge the
outcome.
18. Last year, Oklahoma’s Department of Environmental Quality added eight
lakes to what is now a list of 40 lakes where people should limit their fish
consumption due to the dangerous levels of mercury. Do you believe that coal
fired power plants contributed to the mercury contamination in those 8 lakes? Do
you believe coal fired power plants contribute to mercury contamination in the
environment?
I agree with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality's
determinations regarding fish advisories. As discussed elsewhere in my
written responses to the Committee, coal fired power plants are the largest
point source emitters of mercury into the air in the United States. I do not
have direct knowledge of whether these fish advisories were caused by coal
fired power plants or other sources, and if so whether those sources are
located in the United States or elsewhere.
19. Do you agree that fish consumption is a leading source of mercury exposure
and that the source of mercury in fish comes largely from the burning of fossil
fuels? If you disagree, please explain why, including citations of the authoritative
bodies that support your position.
I agree that fish consumption is a leading source of mercury exposure,
particularly in certain subpopulations, such as unborn children.
20. Do you agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics’ finding on the
importance of minimizing mercury exposures for child health? If you disagree,
please explain why, including citations of the authoritative bodies that support
your position.
I agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics' finding. As I stated in my
testimony before the Committee, mercury is appropriately regulated as a
hazardous air pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. If I am

146

 confirmed as Administrator, I will regulate under Section 112 in a manner
that is consistent with Congress's intent in enacting that provision. I will
also faithfully administer other federal statutes that regulate mercury to the
extent that they are under my jurisdiction, including the Mercury Export Ban
Act of 2008, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management
Act of 1996, the Clean Water Act, the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the
Safe Drinking Water Act
21. You are currently representing Oklahoma in challenging the EPA’s
supplemental finding that it is necessary and appropriate to regulate emissions of
mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants. Do you agree that
nearly all covered facilities are already in compliance with EPA’s Mercury and Air
Toxics Standard? If not, explain why not.
The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard has not been vacated by the Supreme
Court or the D.C. Circuit and currently regulates both mercury and other air
toxics. I do not have personal knowledge of whether any facilities are out of
compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard. If I am confirmed as
Administrator, I will exercise my authorities as Administrator to enforce
all laws administered and regulations promulgated by the Administrator,
including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, against sources that are out
of compliance.
22. Do you agree that ground-level ozone is a dangerous pollutant that causes
respiratory and cardiovascular harm? If no, on what basis do you disagree? If you
disagree, please explain why, including citations of the authoritative bodies that
support your position.
I agree that ground-level ozone is a dangerous pollutant that can cause
respiratory and cardiovascular harm,
23. You are currently pursuing a lawsuit against the EPA over the agency’s new
ozone limits, which the EPA is required to review at least every five years. The
new limit is 70 parts per billion; the previous limit, set in 2008, was 75 parts per
billion. Prior to the announcement of the new limit, officials at the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality said that the state would be able to meet the
70 ppb level, however you have taken the position that EPA’s standard is
unachievable, and you have criticized the agency’s data collection and its
scientific processes. Could you please describe why you feel the EPA is
unqualified to assess the safety and necessity of the new ozone levels? Could

147

 you please also describe why your state’s Department of Environmental Quality
was wrong to say that they could meet the new ozone safety levels?
Oklahoma joined four other states in a petition for review of EPA’s 2015
decision to lower the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone from
75 ppb to 70 ppb. The legal question raised by the state petitioners in the
case is whether EPA set the standard at a level than can be achieved by
states given the background concentrations and uncontrollable sources of
ozone in many parts of the country. The briefs filed by the many State
petitioners to that rule fully explain the States’ position and speak for
themselves. The case remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit.
24. In a 2013 interview, you said: “The evidence is clear that the current ethanol
fuel mandate is unworkable. The decision by the EPA to lower that standard is
good news for Oklahoma consumers. It’s good the Administration finally
recognized the concerns of consumers and a variety of industries and took steps
to correct this flawed program.” Please explain what you meant by “unworkable”
and “flawed program”. Do you still hold this view? If not, what caused you to
change your view?
As I indicated during my nomination hearing, the Administrator and the EPA
routinely missed the statutory targets in publishing the Renewable Volume
Obligations each year, creating great uncertainty in the marketplace. In fact,
in some years they missed the timeline, as far as submitting those targets,
by over a year; in some cases over two years. The EPA failed to adhere to
statutory requirements, resulting in a flawed and unworkable program.
25. In December 2015, the President-elect said of Senator Ted Cruz’ opposition to
the RFS, “…oil pays him a lot of money, he’s got to be for oil, right? The oil
companies give him a lot of money. So, but I’m with you. I'm with everybody. I'm
with everybody. Look, I’m self-funding. I have no oil company. I have no special
interest.” In contrast, you have received over $300,000 from the fossil fuel
industry, and have sent at least one letter to EPA on your own letter head that
was drafted by the oil industry. If you are confirmed as EPA Administrator, will you
commit to ensuring that your previous donors will not exert undue influence over
the regulatory process and your decision-making at EPA with regard to the
Renewable Fuels Standard?
If confirmed, I will work to administer the RFS in accordance with statute
and Congressional intent.

148

 26. If the Sixth Circuit and the Supreme Court approve EPA’s “Waters of the
United States” rule defining the jurisdictional extent of the Clean Water Act, would
you direct the EPA to amend that rule? If so, how? If the courts invalidate EPA’s
“Waters of the United States” rule, how would you direct the EPA to define which
waterways and wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act?
If I am confirmed, I will seek to make changes to the WOTUS rule following
all appropriate administrative procedures, including the requirements of
notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.
27. In your opinion, under what circumstances should the Clean Water Act apply
to pollution being discharged into groundwater? If the Ninth Circuit’s forthcoming
decision in Hawai’i Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui conflicts with your view, would
you direct the EPA to write a new regulation overruling the 9th Circuit?
I believe that the Clean Water Act applies only to discharges to surface
water, not groundwater. In contrast, the Safe Drinking Water Act requires
permits for underground injection into certain aquifers. I cannot speculate
on a judicial decision that has not been issued.
28. You’ve taken money from Monsanto, one the world’s largest sellers of
pesticides, in your previous electoral campaigns. How will you ensure that the
safety of pesticides is vetted and regulated by the EPA according to the best
science on risk and potential harm, rather than the profit-making interests of your
campaign financiers? In your role as EPA administrator, how will ensure the
agency is not unduly influenced by the political power of these large corporations?
If confirmed as Administrator, I would expect EPA's regulatory process
relating to pesticides to be open and transparent and based on sound
science in accordance with EPA's legal authorities.
29. What will you do to ensure EPA is conducting a transparent process regarding
pesticide regulation? Please specify how you will approach notifying the public
regarding pesticides in terms of notice of actions, publication of information
(including studies and data) in the dockets, or timely responses to requests under
the Freedom of Information Act. If you do not believe in a transparent process,
why not?
I am committed to transparency at EPA. I commit to making sure that EPA
data is made available to the public consistent with applicable privacy and

149

 confidentiality laws, and I will work to ensure that EPA uses a variety of
tools and methods to keep the public informed about EPA activities as they
relate to pesticide regulation if I am confirmed.
30. What will you do to work with pesticide manufacturers, distributors,
conservation organizations, farmers, and beekeepers to ensure pesticide labels
are clear and enforceable? Will you commit to enforcing these labels? If you will
not work on this issue, why not?
If confirmed as Administrator, I would expect EPA's regulatory process
relating to pesticides to be open and transparent and based on sound
science in accordance with EPA's legal authorities.
31. EPA defines environmental justice as "the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations, and policies." Would you as EPA administrator advance the
goal of environmental justice and if so, how?
If confirmed, I would work to faithfully execute the laws EPA is responsible
for administering in order to protect human health and the environment for
all Americans. As I testified, the Administrator plays an important role in
regarding environmental justice.
32. Exposure to air toxicity, water pollution, lead, and hazardous waste sites
results in disproportionate levels of disease, disability, and mortality amongst
communities of color. As Administrator, what will you do to protect America’s most
vulnerable and underrepresented communities from environmental hazards and
reduce the burden of toxicity shouldered by these communities?
As I testified, the Administrator plays an important role in regarding
environmental justice. If confirmed, I would work to faithfully execute the
laws EPA is responsible for administering in order to protect human health
and the environment for all Americans. If confirmed, I would expect EPA to
operate in an open and transparent manner, consider the views of
stakeholders as appropriate, act based on sound science, and follow the
laws as established by Congress
33. President-Elect Trump has stated that the drinking water crisis in Flint,
Michigan, would never have happened if he was president. If appointed, what

150

 measures do you plan to take to protect drinking water across the country and
particularly for the most vulnerable populations?
If confirmed, I will return EPA's focus to carrying out its core missions,
including, as appropriate, use of EPA's emergency order authority under the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
34. Oklahoma has seen a massive increase in earthquakes recently (907
(>magnitude 3.0) in 2016 and 585 in 2015 - which is more than the previous 35
years combined). The Oklahoma Geological Survey released a report in 2015
linking the disposal of fracking wastewater with earthquakes in Oklahoma. As
recently as November 2016, a 5.0 magnitude earthquake struck Cushing,
Oklahoma. Forty to fifty buildings were reported to have been damaged; Governor
Mary Fallin felt the damage was substantial enough to declare a state of
emergency for Payne County, where Cushing is located (a first step towards
being granted federal aid). • What was the incidence of earthquakes in Oklahoma
prior to widespread use of hydraulic fracturing in the past decade?
• What has been the incidence of earthquakes in Oklahoma in the past 10 years,
since widespread use of hydraulic fracturing?
• What have been the economic and health impacts of earthquakes in Oklahoma
in the past 10 years?
• What was your rationale for not using the office of the Attorney General to
change the disposal practices of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing to protect
the citizens of Oklahoma?
As I discussed at my confirmation hearing, the State of Oklahoma has taken
seismicity issues very seriously and has taken proactive and aggressive
actions. Oklahoma, as have other states, been successfully regulating
hydraulic fracturing since the 40's and 50's. State and federal geologists
have largely confirmed that the while the act of hydraulic fracturing itself
poses little seismicity risk, the underground injection of wastewater at
certain pressures and volumes can result in some seismic activity. While
earthquakes have increased in frequency in recent years, the State has
taken aggressive actions and reports have indicated the rate of seismic
events has recently declined. Seismic activity can of course have significant
impacts on communities and the activities linked to seismicity concerns in
Oklahoma are regulated under state law by other agencies that my office
works with as appropriate under Oklahoma law.
35. The EPA is the front line agency serving or assisting Indian Country with
environmental protection and recognition of treaty rights. As EPA Administrator,
would the you commit to the protection of tribal treaty rights in agency decision
making processes in situations where rights may be affected by EPA actions

151

 including federal approval of: • state water quality standards (CWA)
• state 401 water quality certifications
• state distribution and use of pesticides (FIFRA)
• oil spill program countermeasures (SPCC)?
If confirmed, I will commit to ensuring that the United States meets all treaty
obligations that it has pursuant to treaties with Indian Tribes.
36. Will you support current efforts to establish federal baseline water quality
standards for Indian Reservations that do not currently have Clean Water Act
standards in place? Please explain why or why not. An advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking on this initiative was published in the Federal Register on
September 29, 2016.
Because an advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been published,
this matter will come before me for decision if I am confirmed as
Administrator. Thus, I will not prejudge the outcome, but rather will commit
to fairly evaluating the matter and reaching a sound decision.
37. The 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
(TSCA) requires the EPA Administrator to identify “potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulations” in chemical assessments to ensure their protection.
Tribal and local populations in the Pacific Northwest consume high quantities of
fish that can result in greater exposure to chemical contaminants. How will the
new Administration implement TSCA reform to ensure that tribes and vulnerable
populations unique to individual states are protected by federal rules on toxic
substances?
The Lautenberg Act defined the term "potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulations" as "a group of individuals within the general population
identified by the Administrator who, due to either greater susceptibility or
greater exposure, may be at greater risk than the general population of
adverse health effects from exposure to a chemical substance or mixture,
such as infants, children, pregnant women, workers, or the elderly."
Protecting citizens that are either more susceptible or who have greater
exposure to a substance is an important aspect of the law and I will take
great care to ensure the Act is faithfully executed if I am confirmed.
38. Will you commit to continue EPA's Treaty Rights Guidance and that initiative's
implementation? Will you commit to continue EPA's Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Tribes?

152

 If confirmed as Administrator, I will evaluate all guidance documents and
policies to ensure that they represent faithful execution of the duties
imposed on me, and powers granted to me, by Congress. If the guidance
and policy you referenced, I will keep them in place.
39. The 2014 U.S. National Climate Assessment concludes that climate change
will impact every community in the United States, and that low-income
communities and communities of color will be the hardest hit. These vulnerable
communities will feel the impacts of climate change more severely due to lower
quality housing, which is often less equipped to safely weather severe storms,
severe heat, and freezing temperatures. How will you work to reduce climate
change risks in low-income communities and communities of color?
I believe environmental justice for low-income and minority communities is
an important role of the EPA Administrator. If confirmed, I will adhere to the
applicable statutory authorities to fulfill EPA’s mission to protect human
health and the environment for all of our nation's citizens.
40. I understand that there are two political action committees affiliated with you.
A spokesperson has made the statement that both PACs will be closed by the end
of the month. Can you confirm that that both PACs will be closed by then?
I do not control either of the political action committees to which you refer,
and thus cannot confirm their intentions. As you have heard, however, I
have also heard that both entities have announced that they will wind down
their activities.
41. It has also been reported that a 501(c)(4) organization called Protecting
America Now has been created to raise funds to support your confirmation. If you
are confirmed, will you make sure that Protecting American Now is disbanded?
Please provide a list of Protecting America Now’s donors.
I am not affiliated in any way with "Protecting America Now," and thus have
no ability to disband the organization. For the same reason, I have no
knowledge of the group’s donors.
42. When is it appropriate for the Federal government to regulate pollution rather
than states?

153

 Many federal environmental statutes were designed with the idea that the
states would be the principal implementer. I believe it is essential to begin
with that model. There are instances where the federal government
approves or disapproves state programs or issues implementation plans in
lieu of the state involved. However, this should be the vast exception to the
rule. Some environmental statutes like CERCLA place the principal
responsibility with the federal government for the important remediation
activities under that statute. However, even with statutes like CERCLA, EPA
still have an obligation with work with states and localities in designating
sites which need remediation and most importantly in developing
remediation plans.
43. Do you personally disagree with any existing Federal environmental law, or
any provisions of any existing Federal environmental laws? If so, please explain
which and why.
If confirmed, I will faithfully execute the laws as enacted by Congress.
44. Which EPA regulations do you believe should instead be left to states to
implement, and why?
I believe federal environmental statutes are designed with states as a
primary implementer. Environmental statutes envision that states have the
delegated enforcement and primacy to implement and enforce
environmental statutes. Only when that is not happening or when
negotiations between and among states breakdown should EPA determine a
dispute and only after attempting to assist states negotiate a local solution.
I am fond of saying that we need national standards and neighborhood
solutions. I think that should shape the work of the EPA.
45. When states or local governments regulate pollution with different sets of
standards, various industry groups have raised the concern that it creates a
patchwork of regulatory policies that make compliance difficult. Do you share this
concern, and why?
As I testified in the hearing, I have pursued opportunities to address
interstate environmental quality matters. One of the examples I have
highlighted is the work that Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and
I took to address an enforceable water quality standard between Arkansas
and Oklahoma. I have also discussed how Texas should be responsible
when air quality issues affect Oklahoma and my experience with that. When

154

 negotiations among and between states breakdown EPA has a role to set
environmental standards. However, that is should be a last course of action
instead of the first. I believe environmental statutes are designed with
states as a primary implementer. Environmental statutes envision that
states have the delegated enforcement and primacy to implement and
enforce environmental statutes. Only when that is not happening or when
negotiations between and among states breakdown should EPA determine a
dispute and only after attempting to assist states negotiate a local solution.
I am fond of saying that we need national standards and neighborhood
solutions. I think that should shape the work of the EPA.
46. Do you believe that the Renewable Fuel Standard is an appropriate regulatory
role for the EPA versus states?
Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act provides the Administrator of the EPA
with the authority and responsibility to administer the RFS program. If
confirmed, I will work to administer the RFS in accordance with statute and
Congressional intent.
47. Do you agree that there should be national fuel economy standards to reduce
tailpipe pollution from cars and make vehicles more fuel efficient? Please explain.
While the EPA regulates emissions under the Clean Air Act, it is true that
Congress vested authority to regulate fuel economy through the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards" framework set forth originally in
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Congress vested responsibility for
the CAFE program in the Department of Transportation, not the EPA;
accordingly, I take no position on Congress's policy decision on this
subject.
48. Do you support California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to receive a
waiver from the EPA to set emissions standards for vehicles that are stronger
than EPA standards?
In the Clean Air Act, Congress provided that the EPA Administrator may
waive the Clean Air Act's preemptive effect over some of California's state
air quality standards for mobile sources, when certain specific statutory
criteria are met. If confirmed as EPA Administrator, I will administer this
program in accordance with Congress's objectives, on a case-by-case basis
in accordance with the law and with the administrative record in any given
case, upon proper petition by California.

155

 49. You are currently representing Oklahoma as one of 13 petitioners challenging
EPA’s standards limiting conventional, toxic, and greenhouse gas pollutants from
new oil and gas facilities. Please describe how Oklahoma would prefer to handle
these pollutants in the absence of EPA regulation. If your proposed pollution
standards are more lax than the EPA’s standards, please provide information
supporting the why your standards are preferable from a public health standpoint.
As Attorney General, I sought to ensure that the Oklahoma Legislature
retained its power to make policy for Oklahoma. Policymaking is the
province of the legislature. Thus, I have no opinion with regard to what
environmental policy might be appropriate.
50. Please also describe, and provide the same information, for what Oklahoma’s
policies would be should Oklahoma and its fellow petitioners be successful in
challenging the EPA’s implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.
As my testimony indicates, I firmly believe that the EPA plays an important
role in addressing interstate air quality issues, but it must do so within the
bounds of its legal authority and justified by a record of support. The
actions undertaken by the Office of Attorney General challenging certain
EPA regulations have been because EPA exceeded it legal authorities as
established by Congress and interpreted by the courts. The Department of
Environmental Quality is responsible for implementing and enforcing
environmental laws in Oklahoma.
51. You also represent Oklahoma as a petitioner in ongoing litigation against the
EPA’s 111(b) standards for CO2 emissions for new, modified, and reconstructed
power plants. Should you win your suit, will Oklahoma take any steps to regulate
power plant CO2 emissions, or does the state plan to continue not regulating CO2
emissions?
I will not prejudge the outcome of any rule that is the subject of ongoing
litigation if I am confirmed.
52. As Attorney General, your role was also to prosecute environmental cases
within Oklahoma. Please list all environmental cases you have originated as
Oklahoma’s Attorney General, and provide all documents related to those cases
and a summary of the outcomes of those cases.

156

 Please see the list of cases attached to this response.
53. The Environmental Protection Unit was eliminated as a group within the
Attorney General’s office once you became Attorney General. This appears to
indicate a decrease in support, or at least priority, for pursuing environmental
cases within your office compared to your predecessor. To clarify if you have
continued to pursue environmental cases as Oklahoma Attorney General, please
provide description and documentation of all the environmental cases that were
handled by your office versus the AG’s office during Drew Edmondson’s tenure.
Please also describe the work your office did on any environmental cases that
were begun during your predecessor’s tenure but were continued or completed by
your office.
My office continues to employ attorneys vested with responsibilities related
to environmental protection, including the attorney who served as the lead
attorney on the previous attorney general's "environmental protection unit."
That attorney's responsibilities remain unchanged (he has been promoted,
in fact), and he pursues exactly the kind of cases that he pursued under the
previous attorney general. The only thing that changed was the internal
organization of the attorneys vested with those responsibilities, because I
concluded (consistent with the practices of every attorney general in the
State's history but for my immediate predecessor) that it was not
operationally efficient to have a separate unit for such work. Thus, I chose
to house that work in the Office's Public Protection Unit and then later in the
Solicitor General's Unit. As I explained in my testimony to the committee,
my office continues to pursue environmental cases. I do not possess lists of
cases pursued my predecessor so I cannot provide the comparative that
you request. I am aware that many environmental cases take many, many
years to litigate to completion, so some of the actions that my Office
continues to pursue were initiated prior to my taking office. Please see
attached list of cases.
54. As part of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of
2016, Congress passed the Columbia River Restoration Act, a program which
gives the EPA authority to create a competitive grant program to address
environmental cleanup and restoration in the Columbia River Basin. This program
empowers states and local communities to better coordinate and implement local
cleanup and restoration efforts. Will you, as EPA administrator, work to advance
and implement this bipartisan effort to empower local entities and states?
While I am not familiar with the Columbia River Basin restoration program, I
support collaborative efforts and neighborhood solutions. I also respect

157

 Congressional authorizations. If confirmed, I will ask the EPA staff to brief
me on this program and the new authority granted by Congress.
55. In January, 2017, the EPA announced $17 million in credit assistance for the
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA). This program, initially
passed into law as part of the 2014 WRDA bill, now has the funding needed to
allow EPA to make approximately $1 billion in loans and leverage a total $2 billion
in total water-infrastructure investment. As you mentioned in your hearing, water
infrastructure is critically needed, but often overlooked. Will you, as EPA
administrator, work to ensure adequate resources to implement the WIFIA loan
program, and seek further funding and assistance for other water infrastructure
programs and initiatives, such as the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund?
Yes, if confirmed.
56. The Federal Government has a long history of activities within Portland
Harbor, which in 2000 was designated a Superfund site and is now one of the
largest and most complex Superfund sites in the country. The history of Federal
activities within the Superfund site includes ship building, repairing, and
dismantling, as well as a variety other activities that likely led to some amount of
contamination of the river. Today, the Willamette river sediment within the
Portland Harbor Superfund site is contaminated with compounds associated with
the activities carried out by the Federal government over the course of many
decades. Now that the Environmental Protection Agency has issued its final
Record of Decision for this Superfund site, there will be a process to divide up
cleanup responsibilities among parties responsible for the contamination. Can you
commit to work with the appropriate Federal agencies, such as the Department of
Defense and Department of Justice, to ensure that the Federal government
engages proactively with relevant stakeholders during the allocation process,
takes ownership for its share of the contamination, and pays its fair share of the
cleanup?
I am not familiar with the details of the remedy that has been selected for
the Portland Harbor Superfund site. If confirmed, I expect to make clean up
of contaminated sites one of my priorities and would be interested in
hearing the views of the Congressional Delegation and other stakeholders
on the issues raised by this cleanup plan.

Senator Sanders:

158

 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approximately 15,000
employees. The following questions ask how you, as Administrator, would treat
civil servants and make human resource decisions.
1. Do you support--and promise to uphold--the merit system principles set forth in
Chapter 23 Title 5 U.S. Code, which prohibit factors other than merit from
consideration in civil service employment decisions?
If confirmed, I commit to implementing the law as enacted by Congress.
2. As Administrator, do you support use of the Holman Rule, which allows any
member of Congress to propose amending an appropriations bill to single out a
government employee or cut a specific program? Will you support Congress in
passing an amendment under the Holman Rule?
If confirmed as Administrator, I would implement the law and work with the
Agency in accordance with the laws passed by Congress.
3. Is retention and recruitment of a high quality scientific workforce at EPA a
priority for you?
Yes.
4. As Administrator, do you believe that you will be better able to recruit and retain
top talent at the EPA under conditions where Congress is able to individually
target employees based on political considerations?
If confirmed as Administrator, I would implement the law and work with the
Agency in accordance with the laws passed by Congress.
5. As Administrator, do you support Congress targeting and altering the salaries of
individuals within the EPA?
If confirmed as Administrator, I would implement the law and work with the
Agency in accordance with the laws passed by Congress.

159

 6. As Administrator, how will you generally view the division of responsibility and
authority between Congress and your Department on personnel issues?
In my view, Congress passes the laws governing executive branch
personnel.
On June 14 2016, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed an order on
“Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Employees” (http://src.bna.com/f0T)
and said at the time that it “reinforces that discrimination of any kind in the EPA
workplace is unacceptable, including discrimination on the basis of gender
identity, expression or perceived non-conformity.” Among other things, the order
states that an “employee should be permitted to use the [sanitary and related]
facilities that correspond with their gender identity.” This is in stark contrast to the
suit you filed with 10 other attorneys general challenging the guidance issued
under President Obama on accommodating transgender students in public
schools.
7. Will you as EPA Administrator ensure that Administrator McCarthy’s order is
vigorously implemented, and continue to ensure that transgender and gender
non-conforming employees are not discriminated against on the basis of their
gender-identities?
If confirmed, I commit to protecting the rights of all EPA employees and will
follow the law.
As Attorney General, you disbanded your office’s Environmental Protection Unit
and reduced your office’s funding for environmental law to zero.
8. In your personal opinion, what are the most pressing air and water quality
challenges that deserve the attention of the EPA? What would you do at the EPA
to better address these challenges, if anything?
As discussed, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality -- not the
Office of Attorney General -- has primary responsibility for implementing
and enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma. Consistent with the practice
of every Attorney General save one, I determined that a standalone unit was
operationally inefficient. I opted to combine the Environmental Protection
Unit and the Consumer Protection Unit into a single unit called the “Public
Protection Unit.” The Public Protection Unit continued the work of the
Environmental Protection Unit, and that work continues to this day, headed
by the very same attorney who worked in the Environmental Protection Unit
under the prior Attorney General. As discussed, I believe EPA plays an
160

 important role in addressing cross-state pollution, and if confirmed, I would
expect to work cooperatively with states to address the problems of
environmental pollution.
The Keystone Sanitary Landfill (KSL) is an existing 714-acre landfill located in the
boroughs of Dunmore and Throop, Pennsylvania. KSL has submitted an
application to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for
a permit modification to expand the facility’s disposal capacity by approximately
145 million cubic yards. The permitting and approval of this process is strictly
under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania DEP.
Under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, states
play a lead role in ensuring the federal criteria for operating municipal solid waste
and industrial waste landfills regulations are met, and they may set more stringent
requirements. Under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, EPA
was authorized to determine the adequacy of the state permit programs. In the
absence of an approved state program, the federal requirements must be met by
waste facilities.
9. Are you committed to maintaining the process to determine the adequacy of a
state’s municipal solid waste management plan as required under the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984?
If confirmed, I commit to faithfully executing the laws I would be responsible
for administering as EPA Administrator.
10.Further, if a state does not have an approved state program, are you
committed to inspecting and enforcing federal requirements including the
prohibition on open dumping?
If confirmed, I commit to faithfully executing the laws I would be
responsible for administering as EPA Administrator.
11.Constituents have expressed concerns regarding the potential impact on the
environment, quality of life, health and traffic congestion as a result of the
Keystone Sanitary Landfill. How do you intend to work collaboratively with states
in the event that a state violates the federal Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking
Water Act or a state requests assistance from EPA?

161

 I believe states play an important role in administering environmental laws
such as the Clean Water Act, and if confirmed, I would expect to work
cooperatively with states toward our shared goal of protecting human
health and the environment consistent with EPA's legal authorities.
During your hearing, you stated that climate change was not a hoax, but you also
were reluctant to discuss your views on the causes of climate change. You stated
that your personal views were not relevant. However, as Attorney General, you
challenged EPA’s 2009 finding that greenhouse gases, including those from fossil
fuels, endanger public health and welfare, due to anthropogenic climate change.
The EPA went through an exhaustive scientific review and public comment
process prior to issuing the Endangerment Finding, but in the lawsuit you labeled
it “arbitrary and capricious.” The Endangerment Finding references more than 100
published scientific studies and reports by the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program/U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council of the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences.
12.As Administrator, will you recognize the findings of the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program/U.S. Global Change Research Program and the National
Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences on the science of
climate change, including its anthropogenic causes?
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on
the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving
understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our
changing climate.
In 2014, the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics and the University of
Vermont released the Vermont Climate Assessment report. The report found that
many of our state’s communities have already been highly impacted by climatic
changes and are engaged in processes to respond to these transitions. Some
populations and regions of the state are particularly vulnerable, including rural
areas and those increasingly exposed to extreme weather events. Flooding, such
as experienced under Tropical Storm Irene, has been devastating to some of our
state’s communities. EPA partnered with Vermont in incorporating smart growth
policies to increase flood resilience after the tropical storm. Under direction from
Executive Order 13653, Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate
Change, EPA and New England’s EPA Region 1 both have developed climate
adaptation plans that assist our region in preparing for these changes.

162

 13.Will you support EPA’s continued climate adaptation planning and
implementation in accordance with Executive Order 13653?
If confirmed, I will work to ensure the agency complies with and operates
according to all applicable Executive Orders.
14.Do you support the Paris Climate Agreement?
The role of the United States in the Paris Agreement is a State Department
matter. If confirmed, I will work to advance the mission of the EPA, which is
to protect human health and the environment, consistent with the State
Department's strategy for international engagement on climate change.
15.What are your plans for implementing the Paris Climate Agreement?
Should the government decide to continue to participate in the Paris
Agreement and if I am confirmed as Administrator, I will collaborate with all
involved agencies to ensure that commitments made on behalf of the United
States are achievable and consistent with requisite legal authorities
delegated by Congress.
You have written that the climate change “... debate is far from settled. Scientists
continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its
connection to the actions of mankind.”
16.What would it take for you to admit that all three of these allegations are
incorrect?
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on
the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving
understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our
changing climate.
17.Which scientists, saying what, would change your mind?
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on
the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving

163

 understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our
changing climate.
18.If Harold Hamm told you he was no longer a climate change denier, would you
believe him?
I do not believe he is a climate change "denier."
19.President Elect Trump’s Secretary of State nominee, Rex Tillerson, is no
longer a climate change denier. Why do you disagree with Tillerson?
There is a diverse range of views regarding the key drivers of our changing
climate among scientists, policy-makers and President Trump's nominees. I
believe that these differences should be the subject of robust and open
debate free from intimidation. If confirmed, I will continue to encourage an
honest debate on our changing climate, the role of human activity, our
ability to measure the degree and extent of human activity, and what to do
about it.
The Clean Air Act, and its amendments, sets limits on harmful pollutants like
mercury and sulfur dioxide. As Oklahoma’s Attorney General, you have
repeatedly brought lawsuits against the EPA for their enforcement of the Clean Air
Act, stating that the federal government has overstepped its authority to regulate
and that these decisions are best left to the states. Pollution, like mercury and
sulfur dioxide, from Midwest coal-fired power plants is blown right into New
England. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that bio-accumulates in the fish in our
streams and lakes, and places our pregnant women and young children at
particular health risk. Sulfur dioxide contributes to acid rain that that harms the
forests and waters of New England.
20.If you do not believe that the EPA should have the regulatory authority that
would protect states such as Vermont from interstate pollution, that leaves these
science and public health decisions to the courts. Can you explain why federal
courts should be in the position of determining safe levels of pollution to protect
the health and welfare of Vermonters, as opposed to the federal agency who
mission it is to protect human health and the environment -- air, water, and land?
As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, I agree that the Clean Air
Act gives EPA an important role in addressing interstate pollution issues,
among many other things. If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will exercise

164

 my authority in this area consistent with Congress's intent in enacting the
Act.
Data shows that mercury pollution in the North Atlantic and mercury
concentrations in our fisheries have fallen dramatically since the United States
started requiring stronger emission controls from coal power plants.
21.Given this scientific confirmation of these regulations working how can you
assure us that if you are confirmed to lead the EPA you will continue to accelerate
the clean-up of all sources of mercury emissions, including coal power plants?
I agree that there has been a consistent downward trend in mercury
concentrations, but note that this trend began well before EPA promulgated
the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. As I stated in my testimony before
the Committee, mercury is appropriately regulated as a hazardous air
pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. If I am confirmed as
Administrator, I will regulate under Section 112 in a manner that is
consistent with Congress's intent in enacting that provision. I will also
faithfully administer other federal statutes that regulate mercury to the
extent that they are under my jurisdiction, including the Mercury Export Ban
Act of 2008, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management
Act of 1996, the Clean Water Act, the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
It is widely reported that EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) will be one of the first
policies to be dropped under the new administration.
22.Do you envision that you will seek to replace the CPP with some other
program that also would promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
nationally?
While I will not prejudge the outcome of any Rule that is the subject of
ongoing litigation, if confirmed, I will work to achieve the objectives of EPAadministered laws consistent with the process and rule of law set out by
Congress.
23.According to the EPA, “The Clean Power Plan will lead to climate and health
benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030, including avoiding
2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in

165

 children.” What do you say to parents who have children with asthma who are
worried that the dismantling of the CPP?
If confirmed, I will administer environmental laws that protect human health
and the environment within the framework established by Congress. I will
follow explicit cost-benefit obligations to ensure the benefits are associated
with the pollutant being regulated and the costs are reflective of market
realities.
President-elect Trump has stated that the water poisoning that happened in Flint
Michigan “would never have happened if I were president.” More than 1,000
communities have lead poisoning levels higher than those found in Flint Michigan.
24.If you were head of EPA what actions would you take to ensure that every
community has clean water to drink?
If confirmed, I will focus on EPA’s core missions, including, as appropriate,
use of EPA's emergency order authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
I also will implement the newly revised TSCA statute to address chemicals
and will continue implementation of monitoring, review, and regulation of
contaminants under the SDWA.
25. What federal financial commitments would you need and what changes in
environmental laws, policies and regulations would you need to ensure that a
Flint-like situation never happens again?
It is my understanding that some requirements in the Safe Drinking Water
Act Lead and Copper Rule relating to monitoring and when corrosion
control treatment is mandated are ambiguous and need to be clarified to
make both compliance and enforcement easier and prevent a Flint-like
situation from happening again. If confirmed, I will ensure that the revisions
to that rule proceed expeditiously. As to resources, I will return EPA's
focus, including resources, to carrying out its core missions. In addition, I
believe that the new WIFIA program offers significant opportunities to
leverage additional infrastructure investments.
Lake Champlain is one of Vermont’s most treasured environmental features.
Tourism and property values are tied to the health of the lake—keeping its waters
swimmable, fishable and drinkable. Run-off—including from lawns, paved roads
and parking lots, and farmlands—contributes to high levels of phosphorus that
spur algae growth. The algae turns the lake green and can be toxic. In 2016,
EPA released new phosphorus limits for the lake by establishing a TMDL (Total

166

 Maximum Daily Load). We are concerned that you, as Attorney General, have
opposed other clean-ups similar to that of Lake Champlain. You signed an amicus
brief opposing EPA’s clean-up of the Chesapeake Bay under the Clean Water
Act.
26.As Administrator, will you continue the agency’s support for the clean-up of
Lake Champlain through these new TMDLs?
A TMDL under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act does not establish a
water quality standard. It is a tool for achieving a water quality standard by
determining how much of a particular pollutant, like phosphorus, that a
body of water can assimilate and achieve the water quality standard. EPA
recently issued new phosphorus TMDLs for Lake Champlain to implement
Vermont's water quality standards. These replace a prior TMDL that EPA
had approved in 2002 and then disapproved 9 years later after being sued
by the Conservation Law Foundation. I am not familiar with the details of
either the original Vermont TMDL that EPA approved or the new TMDLs that
EPA developed after being sued. I believe TMDLs can only be successful if
developed in a collaborative fashion. It is my hope that the new Lake
Champlain TMDLs were developed in such a fashion and in accordance with
the law. If so, I am not aware of any reason that I would not support their
implementation, if confirmed as EPA's administrator.
27.Specifically, should Vermont fail to make satisfactory progress toward meeting
the TMDL, would you support EPA’s prior pledge to ramp up federal oversight of
Vermont programs and crack down on pollution from wastewater treatment
facilities? If not, how will you ensure Clean Water Act obligations are satisfied?
Under Clean Water Act regulations (40 CFR 122.44), limits in a NPDES
permit for a point source must be consistent with any waste load allocation
for the discharge set forth in a TMDL and once these limits are part of a
permit, they are federally enforceable. Vermont is authorized to carry out its
own permitting program in lieu of the federal permitting program. If
confirmed, I will work with the State of Vermont to see that the requirements
of the Clean Water Act are met.
The EPA works with other state and federal agencies in developing contingency
plans in the event of an oil spill. These plans identify and coordinate the activities
of the different government agencies and private organizations involved in the
response. Vermonters are concerned about the potential for oil spills, particularly
from rail accidents, that might adversely affect the state’s waters. We view the
EPA as a critical partner in developing plans for, and responding to, the case of
an oil spill with potential impacts to a water body or other area subject to the
167

 jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
28.Do you as Administrator commit to the EPA’s partnership with the states in
developing plans for, and responding to, the case of an oil spill that affects waters
under its jurisdiction, such as Lake Champlain?
EPA, in partnership with other federal agencies on the National Response
Team, has a significant role in carrying out the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. EPA is the lead agency for
responses under the Oil Pollution Act to spills into inland waters (other than
the Great Lakes) and the Coast Guard is the lead agency for coastal waters
and the Great Lakes). If confirmed, I will support EPA's continued
implementation of the oil spill response authorities given to it by Congress.
At EPA, science provides the foundation for Agency policies, actions, and
decisions made on behalf of the American people.
29.What should be the role of science in the development of EPA policies, rules,
and regulations?
I fully believe, as former EPA administrators have stated, that science must
serve as "the backbone" of EPA actions.
U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell has observed that “consumer spending
for outdoor recreation is greater than household utilities and pharmaceuticals
combined — and yet the federal government has never fully recognized or
quantified these benefits.” Outdoor recreation is not just an issue of concern to the
Department of the Interior, it depends on clean air and water, which are under the
purview of the EPA. The health and welfare of Americans is dependent on their
ability to be actively engaged outdoors, breathing clean air and drinking clean
water.
30.If under your watch, the EPA seeks to reduce regulations, will you take into
account the economic losses from recreation to places like Vermont before doing
so?
As I indicated in my testimony, if confirmed, my primary goal would be to
protect the American people through lawful regulations. I understand
environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act,
168

 prescribe in certain instances that the EPA consider economic impacts in
the rulemaking process. If confirmed, I commit to fully follow the law as
provided by Congress.
Much of the nation’s and the world’s attention has been focused in recent months
on the Dakota Access Pipeline, the construction of which crosses multiple states.
Many pipelines on Indian lands are located entirely within a single state, however.
Here EPA is not always the primary regulator, and state laws do not always apply.
The health and environmental consequences of pipeline failures, however, can be
enormous.
31.Will you commit to work with this Committee and other agencies to address the
environmental and public health and safety issues associated with the operation
of pipelines on Indian lands, including purely intrastate pipeline facilities?
If confirmed, I will faithfully execute all applicable laws as Administrator. As
was discussed at my confirmation hearing I have worked successfully with
Oklahoma Tribes and I would use my role to address environmental and
public health and safety issues on state, federal, and tribal lands.
Yesterday, the Obama Administration took the final step in laying out a process
for the next administration to provide a full environmental review for the Dakota
Access pipeline.
32.Will you commit to fully supporting the Army Corps of Engineers as it conducts
reviews of alternative routes and to meaningful consultation with Native American
tribes when a project could affect their tribal treaty rights?
I cannot speak to the actions of the Army Corps of Engineers but if
confirmed I will carry out any legal duties required by the Administrator of
the EPA.
Oil and natural gas extraction by way of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” has
expanded rapidly in the United States, including in your state of Oklahoma. As
you know, there are increasing concerns about water and air contamination,
including the seismic activity associated with wastewater disposal. EPA
conducted a study of hydraulic fracturing’s drinking water impacts and released a
final report in December 2016. The agency found “hydraulic fracturing activities
can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances.” The report
identifies certain conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing
activities can be more frequent or severe. Both Vermont and New York have
169

 banned hydraulic fracturing out of concerns for its public health and environmental
effects.
33.Do you concur with the conclusions of the EPA’s final report on hydraulic
fracturing and drinking water?
As I discussed at my confirmation hearing, states like my home state of
Oklahoma have been successfully regulating hydraulic fracturing for
decades. As EPA officials have indicated the number of identified cases of
drinking water contamination related to hydraulic fracturing activities is
small particularly compared to the large number of hydraulically fractured
wells and I agree with that assessment.
34.Are there gaps in available data that make it difficult for the EPA to fully assess
hydraulic fracturing effects on drinking water as well as air quality?
Hydraulic fracturing has been extensively studied by state, federal, and nongovernmental bodies.
35.What further studies—if any—do you believe would be appropriate for EPA to
conduct on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on air and water quality?
I am not aware of any urgent need for new studies of hydraulic fracturing
but if confirmed I commit to review any new information on the subject.
36.Do you agree, as EPA scientists found, that of the 1,606 chemicals injected for
hydraulic fracturing, 173 chemicals are a proven risk to public health?
Risk encompasses both hazard as well as a likelihood of exposure. EPA
found that 173 of the chemicals listed can be hazardous but did not speak to
their risk likely because of their very low probability of exposure.
To date communities have been absorbing the costs of damage from oil and gas
operations, whether that is in terms of health impacts, contaminated soils and
water, which depress property values and destroy businesses, residential
neighborhoods turned into industrial zones, earthquakes caused by injection wells
(which are increasingly being excluded from homeowner insurance policies) and
more.

170

 37.What would be your approach as Attorney General to ensuring that
communities do not to absorb these costs, and operators become responsible for
the full costs of their operations, including damages?
As discussed at my confirmation hearing as Attorney General I have taken
on oil and natural gas companies who violated Oklahoma laws and
regulations. If confirmed, I will uphold and execute the laws as established
by Congress.
38.Given that High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF), or fracking gas wells,
currently require an average of 4.8-9.7 million gallons of fresh water to fracture a
single well (Note: This demand is growing by 11-20% per year), and only 4.57.5% of this water is being recycled, would you consider modern-day oil and gas
drilling to be a long-term, sustainable solution to our country's energy needs?"
EPA's final report on hydraulic fracturing and drinking water found that in
most cases hydraulic fracturing constituted "generally less than 1% of total
water use" in counties and stated that their findings suggested "that
hydraulic fracturing operations represented a relatively small user of water
in most counties." I agree with these specific EPA conclusions.

39.When did you first find out that fracking could cause earthquakes in Oklahoma
under certain geological conditions? Did you publicly call on industry to alter their
practices?

171

 As I stated at my confirmation hearing the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission is vested with the jurisdiction of regulating oil and gas
activities, they have acted to address seismicity concerns in the state and I
have worked with and supported the Commission and other state agencies
as required by state law.
40.What percentage of injection wells in Oklahoma is monitored for pollution (in
groundwater, deep and shallow)? In those that were monitored, what was the
concentration of pollutants?
Wastewater disposal through underground injection is regulated by the
State of Oklahoma through delegated powers from the EPA pursuant to the
Safe Drinking Water Act and to the best of my knowledge the State
appropriately follows all requirements under the law.
The “Hockey Stick Moment” is when a variable of interest hits an exponential point
in its growth with respect to time. The most notable “Hockey Stick Moment” is the
rising levels of atmospheric CO2, N2O, and CH4 resulting from anthropogenic
forces. However, a moment closer to Oklahoma is the exponential increase in
earthquake activity even the USGS has shown is a function of the disposal of
nearly 20% of US fracking waste into Oklahoma and Kansas' Class II Injection
wells.
41.Do you agree that this growth in quake activity is a function of excessive and
irresponsible oil and gas waste generation and disposal and is worthy of more
research and monitoring by the EPA?
As previously mentioned, wastewater disposal through underground
injection is regulated by the State of Oklahoma under delegated powers
from EPA pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Underground injection is
not unique to the oil and natural gas industries as EPA has regulations on
six different classes of underground injections. Underground injection of
wastewater from oil and natural gas activities has been conducted safely in
a number of states for decades, and, in a previous EPW hearing, Senator
Cardin complimented "the actions taken" in Oklahoma with regard to oil and
gas wastewater disposal. He went so far as to say the State "provided a
good model that should be used in other States," lauding Oklahoma's
actions as an example of "the Federal Government working with the State to
develop the right framework for dealing with natural gas extraction." The
State of Oklahoma has acted on local seismicity concerns and, to the best
of my knowledge, follows all applicable SDWA requirements in regulating
class 2 injection wells within the state.
172

 42.You at first belittled the idea that oil and gas operations could cause human
induced seismicity in Oklahoma, so did Harold Hamm. Do you now believe that
you were both wrong?
As new information becomes available on a number of issues it should
always be evaluated and taken into consideration. The State of Oklahoma
has taken actions to address seismicity concerns related to the oil and
natural gas industry and I support the state taking action.
43.How would a Trump/Pruitt EPA address growing environmental and economic
justice issues associated with existing oil refineries and associated
unconventional oil and gas infrastructure proposals?
As I stated at my confirmation hearing I believe addressing environmental
justice in poor and minority communities is an important role of the EPA
Administrator. If confirmed I intend to enforce laws under EPA jurisdiction
with uniformity regardless of which industry a potential violation of law
comes from.

44.Would you support implementing a requirement to provide full, well specific,
public disclosure of all information related to oil and gas development involving

173

 hydraulic fracturing that informs understanding groundwater, surface water, public
health and safety, and habitat potential impacts?
If confirmed I would review both EPA's legal authorities as well as the
potential need for new requirements and regulations.
With regards to decommissioning a former nuclear power plant, a fair amount of
confusion appears to exist in regulating non-radiological hazardous materials
during active plant demolition. Most agencies, including the EPA, will defer to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for anything at a nuclear power plant site.
However, the NRC does not regulate the non-radiological aspects of nuclear
power plant operation--e.g., the NRC does not regulate chemical or oil spills that
occur at a nuclear power plant site.
45.How active of a role should the EPA play during the hazardous material survey
and active demolition phases of power plant decommissioning to assure that
public health and the environment are not impacted by a site’s prior use as a
nuclear power plant?
In 2002, the EPA and the NRC signed a Memorandum of Understanding
entitled “Consultation and Finality on Decommissioning and
Decontamination of Contaminated Sites.” The EPA’s responsibilities with
regard to the regulation of non-radiological hazardous materials are address
in sections V.C.3, V.D.4, and VI. If confirmed, I will carry out EPA’s
responsibilities under the law.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires all federal agencies to
consider the potential environmental impact of any industrial project while the
agencies assess their regulatory authority specific projects. While the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) does conduct Environmental Assessments for
nuclear power plant construction, operations, modifications and decommissioning
activities, these assessments are frequently conducted after all other technical
assessments for a nuclear power plant project have been evaluated; meaning that
they are not an integral part of the NRC’s regulatory decision-making process.
46.As Administrator, how will you encourage or require the NRC to more
rigorously include NEPA requirements in its “technical” regulatory evaluations?
I am not familiar with how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts its
analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act. Under section 309 of

174

 the Clean Air Act, EPA reviews and comments on the NEPA analyses of
other agencies. If confirmed, I will ensure that EPA continues to carry out
this statutory responsibility.
Changes in weather patterns, such as heavier precipitation events that increase
run-off and flooding, are affecting lakes, rivers, and reservoirs nationwide. Water
quality, quantity, and the integrity of our water infrastructure are at risk. Recent
studies in the Northeast have found that degraded water quality on lakes can cost
lakeside communities millions of dollars in losses from both tourism and taxable
income due to reduced property values.
47.How will the EPA support water resource management programs to address
these issues?
If confirmed, I will continue to implement the water quality protection
authorities granted to EPA by Congress. These include regulatory and
financial and technical assistance programs. The Clean Water Act
expressly leaves the allocation of water quantity to states. I further note that
Congress has not given EPA water resources management authorities.
Instead, such programs are carried out by the Corps of Engineers and, in
the 17 Western states, the Bureau of Reclamation.
48.How would you address EPA’s permitting backlog, e.g. the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (point source water dischargers) program?
Making sure permits are current is one of core functions under the statutory
responsibilities given to EPA and in turn carried out by authorized states.
However, in recent years states have been asked to shift their focus and
resources to other activities. If confirmed, I would focus on ensuring EPA is
able to carry out its core functions under our environmental.
Federal regulations such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act set
national standards to protect our natural resources and safeguard public health. In
2010 you campaigned against a "one-size-fits-all strategy" towards environmental
protection.
49.What did you mean by that and how would you, as EPA Administrator, ensure
that all Americans are adequately protected against poisonous water and air
regardless of where they happen to live?

175

 As I said in my testimony before the committee, I support national
standards and neighborhood solutions. That means there may be one
standard that applies nationally, but not only one way to achieve that
standard. If confirmed, I will bring this philosophy to my role as EPA
Administrator.
50.Do you support and stand behind the premise of the Clean Water and Clean
Air Acts that every American has the right to clean water and air?
I fully support the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.
In a court filing opposing the Waters of the United States you wrote "This
regulation usurps the state's authority over its land and water use, and triggers
numerous and costly obligations under the [Clean Water] Act for the state and its
citizens."
51.Without national regulations how would you guarantee the quality of water that
flows across state boundaries?
Regulation of rivers and streams that form the boundaries of states or flows
from one state to another is not an issue raised by states in the WOTUS
litigation.
52.Do you believe that the only people with an interest in water are those within a
state and not downstream neighbors?
No.
53.Every national science organization, not to mention the Pentagon, lists climate
change as a critical threat to our planet, our economy, and our national health.
The Pentagon considers Climate Change a "Threat Multiplier" and a "Growing
Security Threat." Do you agree with the Pentagon and our National Security
advisors regarding the severity of this crisis?
I have no reason to disagree with the statements from the listed security
experts, although I have not made any attempt to independently verify their
accuracy.

176

 54.Please describe your plan, process, or other information that the EPA may be
able to provide to the Pentagon to mitigate or mollify the threats our military
describes.
Interagency cooperation is very important. I believe the development of
military readiness and response plans are best left to our military and
national security experts. If confirmed, I will provide technical expertise to
other agencies as appropriate.
55.Will you be promoting greater use of carbon-based fossil fuels?
I do not believe it is the mission of the EPA to promote one type of energy
source over another. If confirmed as Administrator, I will fairly and equitably
enforce the laws within the framework established by Congress and not
pick winners and losers.
56.Do you think the EPA has any role in helping our nation decrease or end the
consumption of carbon fuels?
The mission of EPA is to set standards that protect the environment and the
health and welfare of our citizens. While setting national energy policies are
not within the statutorily ascribed purview of the agency, EPA regulatory
actions often impact the ability of those charged with generating our
nation's energy to do their job. If confirmed, I will listen to all impacted
stakeholders when developing EPA actions. I will also coordinate with
impacted agencies, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to
ensure EPA's actions do not undermine their equally important missions
and statutory objectives.
57.Do you see any reason for reducing carbon emissions that come from using
fossil fuels like oil, coal, and natural gas?
I believe the Administrator has an important role when it comes to the
regulation of carbon dioxide. If confirmed, I will fulfill the duties of the
Administrator consistent with Massachusetts v. EPA and the agency's
Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases respective of the relative
statutory framework established by Congress.
58.What do you think are the most reliable sources for scientific news and
information?
177

 If confirmed as EPA Administrator, I will adhere to the applicable statutory
authorities to fulfill EPA’s mission to protect human health and the
environment and will base my decisions on sound science, including advice
provided by agency experts and advisory personnel.
59.Do you plan to request regular briefings from government science and/or
intelligence sources? If so, how often? If not, why?
If confirmed, I will make decisions based on sound science reflective of
diverse, objective and unbiased views conducted in a transparent manner
reliant on public engagement and consistent with the framework
established by Congress.
60.Do you intend to have meetings with or receive regular briefings from private
industrial sources? If so, how often? If not, why?
If confirmed, I intend to operate the agency consistent with the statutory
framework established by Congress and follow associated processes,
which require extensive outreach with the public and regulated community.
The President-Elect has positioned himself as a champion of coal miners. You
may be aware of the crisis facing the nation's largest multi-employer health and
pension plans serving coal miner retirees, administered by the UMWA. The
pension plan is facing insolvency within 10 years and, more immediately, over
20,000 retired coal miners and their dependents are facing an imminent loss of
health care coverage. Senator Manchin e developed a bi-partisan legislative
response to this crisis called the Miners Protection Act that I co-sponsored. It was
marked up and passed by the Senate Finance Committee last September on an
18-8 vote. We were expecting the Senate and House Republican leadership to
work with us to include the MPA in the Continuing Resolution package that we
deliberated on during the lame duck session. We also asked the President-Elect
to express his support for this legislation given his abundant pro-coal miner
rhetoric during the Presidential campaign. Senate Democrats sent him a letter
imploring him to publicly express his support. We got no response. The outcome
was a Continuing Resolution that included nothing more than a 4 month extension
of health benefits for the retirees who now face a termination of benefits in April
instead of this month.

178

 61.How will you work with the President-elect and the rest of his cabinet to work
with Congress to pass the MPA and fulfill the nation's commitment to the coal
miners whose work powered this country for generations?
I am not familiar with the proposed legislation referenced in the question or
EPA's authorities and responsibilities for pension and health care plans for
miners.
As you may know, each federal agency, including EPA, has an important role in
enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on
the basis of race, color and national origin by recipients of federal funds. This is
an accountability law — before the law was passed, federal funds were
subsidizing agencies and organizations, from schools to hospitals to other
agencies of government that discriminated. The case that led to the passage of
Title VI was Simkins v. Moses Cone Memorial Hospital, a 1963 case in which a
circuit court finally, 9 years after Brown v. Board, struck down a provision of
federal law that allowed federally subsidized hospitals to have separate wings for
“whites” and “colored” people under a “separate but equal” provision of a federal
law called the Hill Burton Act.
62.Are you familiar with Title VI?
Yes.
63.Are you familiar with the Moses Cone Memorial Hospital case?
Yes.
64. If confirmed, wiill you commit to enforcing Title VI and the regulations
promulgated by EPA to enforce Title VI?
If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by
Congress that impose duties or grant authority to me as Administrator,
including the Civil Rights Act.
Title VI (at 42 USC 2000d-1) specifically empowers “each federal department and
agency” that distributes federal funds to effectuate Title VI and then authorizes
each agency to issue rules, regulations and orders to implement the law. Thus,
the authority and responsibility to enforce Title VI and to ensure that recipients of

179

 federal funds are not discriminating rests with each federal agency, including
EPA. As you may know, federal enforcement is all the more important because
affected communities can’t go to court to enforce claims unless they can prove
intentional discrimination under a case that arose out of Alabama — Alexander v.
Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001).
65.Are you familiar with the text of Title VI, 42 USC 2000d, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin?
Yes.
66.What is your vision for Title VI enforcement at EPA? What reforms need to be
made? What concrete steps do you envision to strengthen civil rights
enforcement at EPA?
If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute Title VI. I will expect
my staff to evaluate any areas that might need reform, and I will take
appropriate actions based on the recommendations made to me.
67.Are you familiar with the Supreme Court decision in Alexander v. Sandoval
(2001)?
Yes.
68.To your knowledge, does the text of the law define or limit the meaning of
“discrimination”?
I cannot answer this question without additional context as to what text of
what law you refer to.
69.Are you familiar with regulations promulgated by EPA to implement this
language, found at 40 CFR Part 7?
I cannot answer this question without additional context as to what you are
referring to when you say "this language."
70.In your opinion, does this language further define what is meant by
“discrimination”?

180

 I cannot answer this question without additional context as to what you are
referring to when you say "this language."
71.In fact, the regulations prohibit actions with an unjustified disparate impact. Do
you agree?
The regulations speak for themselves.
72.Are you aware of criticism that EPA has historically done a “poor” job of
enforcing Title VI and its regulations?
I am not.
73.If so, do you agree or disagree with criticisms that EPA has historically done a
“poor” job of enforcing Title VI and its regulations?
Because I have not heard those criticisms, I cannot say whether I disagree
or not.
74.Are you familiar with the Deloitte Report (2011),
see https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/723416/epa-ocr-audit.pdf, which
documented problems with EPA’s enforcement of Title VI? If so, what is your past
experience with the Deloitte Report?
I am not familiar with the report you reference.
75.Were you aware that the Deloitte Report made the following findings:
•The Office has not adequately adjudicated Title VI complaints – those
addressing allegations of discrimination against communities of citizens affected
to environmental rules promulgated by the EPA.
•OCR has not completed compliance checks of EPA grantees, in a timely or
effective manner, to ensure that grantees are not engaging in discrimination in
their work.
I am not familiar with the report you reference.
76.If so, what is your past experience with the findings?

181

 I am not familiar with the findings.
77.In your opinion, what has the EPA already done to address these issues?
I do not know what EPA has or has not done to address any such issues.
78.Do you know whether these steps have been effective?
Because I am not aware of the steps taken--if any--I cannot judge their
effectiveness.
79.In your opinion, what more could the EPA do to address these issues?
It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge an issue that may come before
me for decision if I am confirmed as Administrator. If the issue comes
before me, I will ensure that the issue is fully and fairly considered, as part
of a transparent process that seeks input from all stakeholders.
80.If confirmed, will you commit to taking action to address these issues?
If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by
Congress and imposing upon EPA duties or powers.
81.Do you believe that recipients of federal funds — across this whole country —
are making any decisions that are discriminatory?
I do not doubt that some recipients of federal funding engage in behaviors
that violate federal anti-discrimination laws.
82.Under Title VI and its regulations, should recipients of federal funds review
whether a decision has a disproportionate adverse impact to ensure that it is in
compliance with civil rights law?
Recipients of federal funds should take all actions required by law to ensure
that they are in compliance with federal civil rights laws.
83.Do you have plans for pre-award compliance reviews? When would any such
plans go into effect? And post-award compliance reviews? What would such
reviews involve?

182

 If confirmed as Administrator, I will ensure that federal funds are awarded in
compliance with federal law.
84.What is your understanding of the obligations of recipients under Title VI and
EPA implementing regulations? Do you think those obligations are sufficient?
The obligations of recipients of federal funds are defined by the statutes
and regulations to which you refer. Those statutes and regulations speak
for themselves.
Energy burdens above six percent of a household’s income are typically
considered unaffordable, but low income households spend an average of 15 to
20 percent of their income on energy bills. Low income families are also more
likely to live in older, inefficient housing. The Clean Power Plan provides
incentives to states to invest in energy efficiency improvements in low income
communities.
85.Are you concerned about the lack of access to energy efficient, affordable
housing for low income families?
I am unfamiliar with EPA's role and statutory authorities as they relate to
affordable housing. I am concerned about the impact regulations can have
on the cost of energy for consumers.
86.As EPA Administrator, how would you help low income working families reduce
their energy burdens and access energy-efficient affordable housing?
I am unfamiliar with EPA's role and statutory authorities as they relate to
affordable housing.
Low-income rural and urban communities and people of color are
disproportionately live near, are exposed to, and die from environmental
risks/hazards. As of February 27, 2014, there were 1322 Superfund sites on the
National Priorities List in the United States. Fifty-three additional sites have been
proposed for entry on the list. Communities of color breathe in nearly 40 percent
more polluted air than whites. Sixty-eight percent of African-Americans live within
thirty miles of a coal-fired power plant, the zone of maximum exposure to
pollutants that cause an array of ailments, from heart disease to birth defects. Half
of all U.S. Latinos live in the country’s most polluted cities. Hispanic children are
twice as likely as non-Hispanic white children to die from asthma while, from
2012-2014, African American children had a death rate ten times that of nonHispanic white children. African-American children are three times as likely to
suffer an asthma attack.

183

 87.As EPA Administrator, how would you ensure that vulnerable low-income
communities and communities of color are not overburdened by the harmful
impacts of pollution?
If confirmed, I expect to make the cleanup of contaminated land one of my
priorities. I believe the nation's environmental laws apply to all Americans.
88.Would you say there is anything you will do, if confirmed, to help these
Americans? Will you push to reduce smog and particulate matter that causes
more asthma attacks and other lung problems? Or is that a matter for the states
and not the EPA?
If confirmed, I will work to ensure human health is protected by
implementing Clean Air Act provisions, such as the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for criteria pollutants, including for ground-level ozone
and particulate matter, which prioritize protection of human health and
welfare. I will also work to ensure all Americans are treated equally under
the law in furtherance of EPA's mission to protect human health and the
environment.
EPA has adopted many cost-effective safeguards in the past eight years that
would significantly reduce the pollution that contributes to asthma attacks in
children -- many of which you challenged as Attorney General of Oklahoma.
89.Can you explain how you will protect the interests of these and other children
that suffer from asthma?
As I stated in my testimony to the committee, all legal positions that I took
in my capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma were in an the
capacity of an advocate. If confirmed as Administrator, I will consider all
matters presented to me with an open mind and will work to reach
conclusions that are reflected in the administrative record of each matter
and that comport with Congress's intent in enacting the Act.
90.Will you commit to working to further reduce pollution, including pollution that
disproportionately burdens Hispanic and Environmental Justice communities?
If confirmed, I will work to ensure all Americans are treated equally under
the law in furtherance of EPA's mission to protect human health and the
environment.
91.Do you think the EPA has done enough to ensure that low-income
communities near brownfields receive the same amount of attention as high-

184

 income communities? Will you give priority to the safety and health of our children
and future generations over short-term current economic gains of few?
I do not know what EPA has or has not done on this issue. If confirmed as
Administrator, I will work to ensure the brownfields program is operated in
accordance with applicable legal requirements.
92.Municipal electric utilities depend on the municipal bond tax-exempt status.
For Vermont Municipal electric utilities, this is particularly true with regard to utility
investments. Do you support tax-exempt bonding as one important tools to
improve utility infrastructure (electric, water, wastewater, etc)?
As Attorney General for Oklahoma, I have not studied the issues related to
tax-exempt bonds for utility infrastructure. I am not familiar with EPA's role
and legal authorities as they relate to municipal tax-exempt bonds.
Your state of Texas is part of a market (ERCOT) that is not Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission jurisdictional. This means that Texas does not comply
with the same requirements as electric utilities in Vermont and other ISO regions
face. ERCOT seems to have embraced wind and other renewable sources.
93.What are the strengths of the ERCOT approach?
I am Attorney General for Oklahoma, not Texas, and do not have an opinion
on the Texas electric grid.
94.How would you contrast those with the strengths and weaknesses of the New
England ISO?
I am not familiar with the electric grid in New England.
“Green infrastructure” (forests, wetlands, natural floodplains, etc.) can play a
critical role in reducing impacts of flooding from extreme weather events like
Tropical Storm Irene, and in helping to meet essential water quality
requirements/improvements such as the EPA-approved Lake Champlain Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan. Also, green infrastructure is often much more
cost effective than updating or investing in new traditional “gray infrastructure.”
EPA has played an important role in providing training, technical and financial
assistance related to capitalizing green infrastructure.

185

 95.What do you see as EPA’s role going forward related to green infrastructure?
Green infrastructure is a good example of a neighborhood solution that can
achieve compliance with national standards. I believe EPA should be
supportive of such efforts. If confirmed, I will work to break down barriers
within EPA to the use of green infrastructure.
In your own state of Oklahoma, wastewater disposal from fracking and drilling has
induced thousands of earthquakes, threatening lives and destroying property. Joe
and Mary Reneau suffered through a 5.7 magnitude quake (Nov. 6, 2011) near
Prague, Oklahoma – their chimney fell into the living room, right on top of a
favorite spot of Mary’s to sit. Luckily for them, Mary wasn’t sitting there at the time,
they had earthquake insurance, and they had $200,000 of repairs done on their
house. Joe jokes that he won the earthquake lottery. Jerry and John Loveland
weren’t so lucky, they had $50,000 worth of damage done on their house, no
insurance, and no way to pay for the damage. Oklahoma is an oil and gas state.
Joe Reneau said he wouldn’t bring any claims against the oil company, because if
he did, he would be “run out of town.” Oklahoma regulators have done next to
nothing to help those harmed by oil industry induced quakes or prevent more
destruction.
96.As EPA administrator, what will you do to help the Amos family, John and
Catherine Fenton, or all those in Oklahoma threatened by oil industry induced
earthquakes?
As I have previously stated, underground injection is regulated by the State
of Oklahoma under delegated authority from EPA under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. The State has taken action to address seismicity concerns and, if
I am confirmed, I will continue working with States and within EPA's legal
authorities to address public health and environmental concerns.
In September 2016, the EPA recommended a moratorium on the underground
injection of fracking wastewater in certain earthquake-prone parts of Oklahoma
because regulations had not successfully addressed the problem.
97.Will you uphold the EPA’s recommendation—yes or no?
The State of Oklahoma has worked collaboratively with the EPA to address
seismicity concerns and state regulators have shut down dozens of

186

 underground injection wells and, if confirmed, I will continue this
cooperative approach to addressing such future issues as they might arise.
98. Specifically, EPA’s recommendation arose out of the agency learning that the
Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the body overseeing the underground
injection control program in a primacy agreement with the EPA, has illegally
permitted restricted wells to return to normal operations. While EPA cannot order
Oklahoma to impose a moratorium, it can revoke the state's authority and take
over regulation of the wells itself. As EPA Administrator, will you regulate these
wells in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and in addressing the
seismic catastrophe occurring in your state—yes or no?
If confirmed as EPA Administrator I will review relevant information,
including EPA's legal authorities, to ensure drinking water protections in
Oklahoma and across the nation.
99.Do you think local communities have the right to protect themselves from
pollution and other threats to public health?
Yes, if authorized under the law and not preempted or displaced by state or
federal law.
100.Will you, as EPA Administrator, support these state and local regulations by
not intervening or challenging them—yes or no?
I believe in cooperative federalism and I will work with States and local
communities to protect citizens consistent with our nations laws.
101. How do you reconcile challenging these rules with your view of respecting
and giving deference to state and local environmental regulation?
It is not clear to me what rules are being referred to in this question,
however, I believe that environmental and public health protections are the
strongest when there is collaboration across all levels of government
consistent with applicable laws.
The FracTracker Alliance has shown that 11% of organic farms are within 1/2 mile
of oil and gas development, and 100% of farms within the San Joaquin Valley and
Southern California are within 8 miles of oil and gas operations (59,840 wells),
187

 and that produced water is being used to irrigate crops (and also organic crops).
California feeds 50% of the country.
102. What is your response to the US maintaining food independence and food
safety when the majority of its food sheds are threatened by oil and gas
contamination?
I have seen no evidence or information that proximity to oil and natural gas
development has contaminated or threatened to contaminate our nation’s
food safety. The State of California would be better able to address their
laws and regulations with regards to the location of oil and gas
development in their State as well as their irrigation policies.
103. Why is energy independence more important than food independence?
I have not made any statements ranking the importance of these two issues
critical to our nation's health and welfare.
104. We have the opportunity to be both energy independent and food
independent without poisoning people and the planet. Why should the US be
dependent on other countries to supply its food, but not be dependent on other
countries to supply its energy?
I support both the goals of domestic energy independence as well as
protecting our domestic food supply and working collaboratively with our
nation's farmers and ranchers.
105. From your Great Plains perspective how do you feel the advent of High
Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) will affect the growing concerns about food
security/safety relative to energy infrastructure?
Oklahoma, as a rural state, has long successfully balanced safe energy
production as well as farming and ranching.
106. How can the public trust the oil and gas industry when it is exempt from so
many environmental regulations?
Any statutory exemptions come from Congress and if confirmed I will
uphold the laws as directed by the Constitution.

188

 107. How can rural communities trust oil and gas operators when rural gas
gathering lines are exempt from federal pipeline safety regulations (because of
the exemption, states also cannot regulate rural gas gathering lines, and therefore
because they are not regulated the operators do not have an obligation to report
on incremental failures along the pipelines, they are only required to report if there
is a need for an evacuation).
The State of Oklahoma has worked well with both rural communities and the
domestic energy industry (including alternative energy producers as well as
conventional) and, if confirmed, I will continue working to foster safe
domestic energy development and maintain trust with our nation’s
communities both rural and urban.
The conventional food supply is sufficiently burdened by a toxic load from
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and genetic modification. It doesn’t need yet
another toxic burden.
108. How can consumers trust the food in restaurants and grocery stores when it
may be grown near oil and gas operations?
If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by staff to before taking action and
would work to ensure EPA followed all applicable legal requirements and
made decisions based on sound science.
109. How can parents trust the food that is being served to their kids in school
cafeterias?
If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by staff to assess what role, if any,
EPA plays concerning the safety of food served in school cafeterias.
Many of our environmental laws were designed to permit regulation and
enforcement by the states so long as state programs meet minimum federal
standards established by EPA. Since state laws, however, do not always have
general effect or application on Indian lands, Congress has amended several of
our environmental statutes to permit tribes themselves to assume primacy of
enforcement.
110. Do you intend to encourage tribes to develop their own enforcement regimes
under approved programs, much as the states do? Or do you expect EPA itself to

189

 provide direct regulation and enforcement of federal environmental laws on Indian
lands throughout the country?
If confirmed as Administrator, I would ensure that Indian lands were subject
to adequate environmental regulation, whether that be through tribes
utilizing regulatory powers as contemplated by Congress, or through direct
regulation by the EPA.
Much of the nation’s and the world’s attention has been focused in recent months
on the Dakota Access Pipeline, the construction of which crosses multiple states.
Many pipelines on Indian lands are located entirely within a single state, however.
Here EPA is not always the primary regulator, and state laws do not always apply.
The health and environmental consequences of pipeline failures, however, can be
enormous.
111. Will you commit to work with this Committee and other agencies to address
the environmental and public health and safety issues associated with the
operation of pipelines on Indian lands, including purely intrastate pipeline
facilities?
If confirmed as Administrator, I would faithfully execute any obligations
imposed on EPA by Congress to ensure the environmental soundness of
pipelines on Indian lands.
Many of the nation’s Superfund sites are on Indian lands. We are still dealing with
clean-up issues from our uranium industry’s legacy from the 1940s and 1950s.
The nation’s largest open pit uranium mine--Jackpile Mine on Laguna--was only
recently added to the Superfund list. The largest Superfund site in the country in
your own state is largely on Indian lands: Tar Creek on Quapaw. We have not
fully addressed abandoned uranium mill tailings piles and the failure of the Church
Rock Dam that dumped irradiated mill tailings into Navajo lands and waters. More
recently the failure of the dam below the Gold King Mine in Colorado turned the
San Juan River on the Navajo Reservation red all the way to Utah. Today, and
nearly every day, fugitive coal dust emissions from trains silt over spawning
grounds of treaty-protected fisheries. Oceangoing dumping threatens subsistence
lifeways throughout Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. Newer and more virulent
strains of black lung disease are overwhelming public health facilities in mining
communities. These are just a few examples of major environmental issues that
impact disproportionately the poor and the underrepresented elements of our
society, including Indian communities and tribal lands.

190

 112. Can you assure us that under your leadership the EPA will address issues of
environmental justice in Native American communities and offer a voice to those
most affected by the environmental consequences of industrialization?
If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all environmental laws
enacted by Congress, and will do so in all communities, including Native
American communities.
These questions extend to resources protected by treaties such as water rights
and compacts, forestry, hunting and trapping, fishing, etc. Some treaties have
language that doesn't apply any longer and needs to be updated. Other language
needs updating to reflect cultural realities. For example, “hunting” rights do not
include “trapping rights” in the letter of the treaty unless trapping is explicitly
mentioned, even though the tribes did not differentiate between both.
113. Please describe the relationship between the federal government and
American Indian Tribes as it relates to sovereignty the trust responsibility.
Pursuant to federal law, the federal government has a trust responsibility to
American Indian Tribes.
114. What obligations do federal agencies have to formally consult with American
Indian tribes? What about independent federal agencies?
The obligations of federal agencies--independent or otherwise--to formally
consult with American Indian tribes are defined by federal law. If confirmed
as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by Congress
requiring or authorizing formal consultation with American Indian tribes.
115. What procedures should the EPA follow regarding permitting of infrastructure
projects that could potentially impact American Indian tribes and their citizens?
If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by
Congress requiring that procedures be followed with regard to
infrastructure projects that could potentially impact American Indian tribes
and their citizens
116. How do you interpret the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, especially as it relates to obligations of the federal
government?

191

 The federal government's obligations with respect to Indian tribes is defined
by federal law.
117. Do you believe federal funding should be block granted to states to then
disburse to tribes? Alternatively, should tribes receive their full and fair allocation
of federal funding without being beholden to cumbersome state bureaucracy?
Federal funding should be disbursed to States and tribes in the manner
directed by Congress.
118. What is the federal government’s role in permitting extraction of mineral
resources on federal Indian lands?
As trustee of federal Indian lands, the federal government's role is to act in
the best interest of the tribes with regard to permitting extracting of mineral
resources on those lands.
119. How will you promote economic development within Indian country?
If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by
Congress directing or authorizing me to promote economic development
within Indian country.
120. How will you ensure the Bureau of Indian Education provides quality
education to American Indian students?
The Bureau of Indian Education is overseen by the Department of the
Interior, not EPA.
121. What is the role of the federal government to promote renewable energy
development on American Indian lands?
The federal government's role in promoting renewable energy development
on American Indian lands is determined by Congress. If confirmed as
Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by Congress
imposing upon EPA duties relating to promoting renewable energy
development on American Indian lands.

192

 122. What is the role of inter-agency cooperation to work across agencies on
American Indian issues?
If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by
Congress imposing upon EPA duties relating to American Indian issues,
and if faithful execution of those laws requires cooperation with other
federal agencies, I will ensure that such cooperation occurs.
123. Will you work with the White House Inter-Agency Working Group on
American Indian issues?
If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by
Congress requiring or authorizing me to work with the White House InterAgency Working Group on American Indian issues.
Federal Indian law has long recognized that tribes maintain authority over Indian
country to the exclusion of states. Oklahoma has 38 federally recognized Indian
tribes and those tribes exert jurisdiction over their lands throughout the state. But
as Oklahoma Attorney General, your office has never filed a brief in support of
tribal jurisdiction. Instead, your office filed briefs in ODEQ v. EPA, the Dollar
General case, and several other cases OPPOSING tribal jurisdiction.
124. How can you hope to serve as a protector of tribal lands when you have,
over and over again, advocated to deny tribal governments the right to regulate
and protect their OWN resources?
As Oklahoma Attorney General, my duty was to ensure that the State of
Oklahoma's jurisdiction was fully realized, and sometimes took legal actions
in pursuit of that duty. If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute
all laws enacted by Congress directing or authorizing me serve as a
protector of tribal lands.
Indian lands outside reservation boundaries. The EPA has, since at least 1984,
recognized the federal government’s trust responsibility, which is built upon the
longstanding historical and legal relationship between the federal government and
Indian tribes. The EPA has also acknowledged that treaties, as part of the
supreme law of the land, have the same legal force as federal statutes and must
be considered when making agency decisions.

193

 125. How will you work to protect tribal treaty lands and resources that lie outside
of reservation boundaries, and how will you help expand tribal authority over
those lands and resources?
If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by
Congress directing or authorizing me to regulate tribal treaty lands and
resources and directing or authorizing me to seek to expand tribal authority
over those lands and resources.
Tribal communities, especially those in Alaska, have borne the brunt of the
impacts of climate change. Several Native Alaskan villages have seen their entire
way of life vanish as their homes have begun to erode away beneath their feet
due to rising sea levels. Others have seen vital food supplies contaminated and
sacred species of fish devastated by climate change.
126. How do you plan to protect native peoples from the effects of climate
change?
If confirmed as EPA Administrator, I will adhere to the applicable statutory
authorities to fulfill EPA’s mission to protect human health and the
environment for all of our nation's citizens.
127.There are established consultation processes set up for Indian Nations. Will
you have “meaningful” talks with them? Will your Agency be transparent in all
dealings with Tribal Nations? Will you be honest and fair?
If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by
Congress requiring consultation processes for Indian tribes. I will engage
all who have business before the EPA--including Indian tribes--in
meaningful, transparent, honest, and fair processes.

194

 Senator Sullivan:
1. Alaska’s seafood industry is the nation’s largest and is one of major employer’s
in the Alaska economy. In fact, over 60 percent of the nation’s commercially
harvested fishery resources are caught and processed in Alaska. Alaska’s waters
remain some of the cleanest and most pristine in the nation. Most of the seafood
processors who process these great resources are located in remote areas of
Alaska. Each of those processors hold Clean Water Act discharge permits for the
small amounts of seafood waste produced during procession operations.
EPA has delegated the management of those discharge permits to the State of
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation as directed by the CWA. In
spite of that delegation, EPA remains actively involved in deciding issues that
impact the ability of the state agency to accomplish its mission. For example, the
EPA is currently considering a rule change that would dramatically impact the
operation of seafood processing plants in those remote areas. That change could
result in some of those operations having to cease processing because they
cannot comply with this rule change. The current rule has been in place for almost
35 years and there is no water quality problem in the locations to justify such a
rule change.
Will you commit to reviewing this proposal and confer with the Alaska
Congressional Delegation prior to making any change to the current status?
If confirmed, I will review this proposal and confer with the Alaska
Congressional Delegation prior to changing the Clean Water Act regulations
currently applicable to seafood processors.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has recently issued a
draft Clean Water Act APDES permit to allow seafood processors to continue
discharging small amounts of waste pursuant to the Clean Water Act.
Unfortunately, EPA is objecting to some of the permit conditions. Again, they are
doing so with no known water quality issues or public concern about those
conditions. Rather, it appears as though the EPA does not approve of the manner
in which our state agency is pursuing its obligations. As a former State of Alaska
Department of Natural Resources Commissioner, I have great faith in the ability of
state employees to make solid permitting decisions that will protect the state’s
environment while allowing operations and employment to continue that are
compliant with the Clean Water Act.

195

 2. Will you commit to reviewing these EPA actions and allow the state to issue its
permit?
Yes, if confirmed, I will review EPA's actions as they relate to Alaska
seafood processing permits. As I stated in my testimony, I support national
standards and neighborhood solutions.
3. CERCLA Financial Assurance Requirements under Section 108(b):
On December 1, 2016 the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed
rule under Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act that would require hard rock mines to obtain
additional and duplicate financial assurance requirements for copper, gold, iron,
zinc and other hard rock mines. If this proposed rule is finalized, the financial
assurance requirements would likely result in significant redundant costs for
mining corporations. EPA has indicated that these regulations will expand to the
oil and gas sector next. If confirmed would you work to ensure that any new rules
or regulations are not duplicative of rules imposed by other federal agencies or
states?
I am not familiar with the details of this rulemaking action and would not
want to prejudge the issue prior to being confirmed as Administrator.
However, if confirmed I will work to ensure EPA complies with all applicable
legal requirements, including those related to analyzing impacts on small
businesses, as part of this or any other rulemaking.
4. Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act:
Do you believe that EPA’s use of a preemptive veto of a project under section
404(c) of the Clean Water Act may create the opportunity for overreach by the
agency and could undermine administrative process and the rule of law?
As I stated in my testimony, I believe that it is very important that federal
agencies follow the appropriate legal process when taking any actions. Any
preemptive action before the completion of a statutorily mandated process
could undermine both the administrative process and the rule of law.

196

 Senator Whitehouse:
1. Estuaries are important coastal habitats the sustain unique wildlife and plant
species, serve as a nurseries for commercially important fish, buffer coastal
communities from coastal storms, and filter water as it flows into the ocean. The
EPA manages a network of 28 estuaries of national significance around the
country. Last Congress, the National Estuary Program (NEP) was reauthorized
through 2021 (Public Law No.114-162) in a bipartisan effort and charged with
providing grants to support projects that address a number of problems facing
estuarine and coastal environments, including seagrass habitat loss, harmful algal
blooms, invasive species, and sea level rise. Coming from a non-coastal state,
please describe in detail how you will acquaint yourself with 1) the NEP, and 2)
coastal issues the NEP helps address.
If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by EPA staff on the relevant
statutory authority and any EPA programs established pursuant to this
authority.
2. Each NEP must institute a Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP) to guide management and conservation decisions at the NEP. The
effects of climate change on estuaries (i.e., saltwater inundation, increased
rainfall-driven runoff, warming waters) are included in these CCMPs. Would you
direct the NEPs to disregard the consequences of climate change in the CCMPs
and other decision-making reports and tools?
If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by EPA staff on the relevant
statutory authority and any EPA programs established pursuant to this
authority. If confirmed, I will follow all as enacted by Congress.
3. The Climate Ready Estuaries program coordinates with the NEP to educate
managers on how to assess the effects of climate change on U.S. estuaries. It
also provides recommendations and toolkits to help design climate change
adaptation and risk identification capabilities. Will you direct the Climate Ready
Estuaries program to remove any materials, cancel any webinars or
presentations, or stop its coordinated work on climate change with the NEPs?
I am not familiar with the details of the specific program referenced in your
question. If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by EPA staff on the
relevant statutory authority and any EPA programs established pursuant to
this authority.
4. Marine debris is a growing problem around the world, with plastic debris being
the most troublesome component due to its pervasiveness and persistence in the
marine environment. The EPA is currently a co-chair of the federal Interagency
Marine Debris Coordinating Committee. Under your direction, will the EPA to
maintain a leadership role on the committee? How will you continue EPA’s

197

 coordinated work with NOAA and other agencies to prevent marine debris,
conduct education outreach, and support research efforts?
I am not familiar with the details of the specific program referenced in your
question. If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by EPA staff on the
relevant statutory authority to better understand EPA's role compared to
those of other federal agencies on this issue.
5. EPA completed a State of the Science White Paper in December entitled “A
Summary of Literature on the Chemical Toxicity of Plastics Pollution to Aquatic
Life and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife.” The white paper identified four key areas
where additional research is needed: 1) “the fate of chemicals both sorbed to and
in plastics under differing environment conditions and within an organism after
ingestion;” 2) “the relative role plastics play in chemical contaminant transfer to
the tissues of organisms compared to other exposure pathways (aqueous dermal
exposure and ingestion from natural prey);” 3) “the relative impacts of physical
and chemical effects of ingested plastic particles on a wide range of organisms;”
and 4) “whether the relatively high surface area of nanoplastics compared to
microplastics and their potential to permeate membranes with increased retention
time may increase their toxicological risk to organisms.” What is EPA’s role and
responsibility in finding answers to these research questions?
I am not familiar with the report referenced in this question. If confirmed as
Administrator, I would expect to be brief by staff to learn more about EPA's
authorities and responsibilities before taking any actions referenced in the
question.
6. Do you accept the science of ocean acidification that has directly connected the
increase in human-caused carbon dioxide emissions with decreases in ocean pH?
First, I would note that the oceans are alkaline and are projected to remain
so. Second, it is my understanding that the degree of alkalinity in the ocean
is highly variable and therefore it is difficult to attribute that variability to
any single cause.
7. Do you accept that the oceans are currently acidifying at a rate unprecedented
in tens of millions of years?
First, I would note that the oceans are alkaline and are projected to remain
so. Second, it is my understanding that the degree of alkalinity in the ocean
is highly variable and therefore it is difficult to attribute that variability to
any single cause. I am unaware of tens of millions of years of data on the pH
of oceans.

198

 8. Do you accept ocean acidification’s predicted toll on coral reefs worldwide,
important habitats for recreation, tourism, and commercial fishing?
I am aware that there is a relationship between the alkalinity of water and
the calcification process that grows shells and reefs and that a decrease in
alkalinity can impair that process.
9. What is the EPA’s role in helping states and coastal communities mitigate or
adapt to the challenges projected for the shellfish industries or the thousands of
individuals that make their living off of this billion-dollar resource?
If confirmed, I will implement the laws that EPA is charged to administer.
Under section 304 of the CWA EPA establishes water quality criteria to
protect aquatic life, including shellfish. Certain EPA programs also include
authorities that can support projects that may benefit the shellfish industry,
including the National Estuary Program under section 320 of the CWA, the
Long Island Sound programs under section 119 of the CWA, and the
Chesapeake Bay program under section 117 of the CWA. Finally, section
319 of the CWA can support programs and projects to reduce runoff that
may impact oyster beds.
10.What do you understand to be the consequences of sea level rise, increased
storm surge, and warming ocean waters on coastal communities and estuaries?
If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by staff on the impact sea level
rise, storm surge, and warming ocean waters on consequences on coastal
communities and estuaries.
11.Both states and some Members of Congress have for years criticized EPA for
“one-size-fits-all approaches” and failing to give adequate flexibility to states. Yet
in challenging EPA’s Clean Power Plan, you attacked EPA for just that – giving
states and regions too much latitude in administering the Clean Air Act. Wouldn’t
that take the Agency in the wrong direction?
I, along with the Supreme Court, which issued a stay against the Clean
Power Plan in February 2016, believe the EPA exceeded the bounds of
authority established by Congress in the Clean Air Act. In particular, the
Rule attempted to supplant decisions traditionally preserved for the states,
including the establishment of intrastate energy policies, for agency
mandated alternatives that would have increased the price of electricity for
local citizens and reduced reliability. The notion of flexibility in the Clean
Power Plan was conceptual at best. If confirmed, I will work to achieve the
objectives of EPA-administered laws consistent with the process and
framework established by Congress abiding by the bedrock principle of
cooperative federalism, which relies on meaningful collaboration between
the EPA and the states to achieve important environmental objectives.

199

 12.According to the EPA, it has been estimated that the Clean Air Act has a
history of reducing air pollution, while creating jobs. Since 1970 aggregate
emissions of common air pollutants dropped 72 percent, while the U.S. gross
domestic product grew 219 percent. Total private sector jobs increased by 101
percent over the same period. In 2020, EPA estimates that the standards will
create the equivalent of over 104,000 new jobs including 17,000 new jobs building
renewable energy facilities and over 78,000 jobs in improving demand-side
energy efficiency. Do you agree that regulations under the Clean Air Act since
1970 have grown the economy? If not, can you provide your analysis, materials
used, and people you solicited to come to this conclusion?
The success of the Clean Air Act is a direct result of the important
partnership between the EPA and the states in developing and
implementing its key programs. State regulators best understand the needs
and uniqueness of local environmental challenges while the EPA is well
positioned to set and adjust environmental safeguards that continue to
improve the nation's air, land and water and protect public welfare. If
confirmed as Administrator, I will adhere to the clear directives and process
set out by Congress so that the agency can once again focus on fulfilling its
core mission.
13.In 2014, four Republican former EPA Administrators – Bill Reilly, Bill
Ruckelshaus, Lee Thomas, Governor Christine Todd Whitman – testified before
EPW that climate change is real, EPA regulations do not end up costing as much
as industry initially estimates, and EPA has clear authority under the Clean Air Act
to curb carbon pollution. In a 2015 interview with Climate Progress, Governor
Whitman said: “The idea the EPA is a job killer is false” and with regard to the
Clean Power Plan “what EPA did was to allow as much flexibility as frankly I’ve
ever seen them be able to create in a regulation.”
Do you think that the former Administrators are correct in their assessment that
regulations do not cost as much as industry initially estimates? If not, can you
explain why not?
I am not sure what specific regulations the former EPA Administrators were
referring to and accordingly lack sufficient information to answer the
specific question. Generally speaking, if confirmed, I will work to ensure
that EPA regulatory actions accurately account for the costs and benefits
across all impacted stakeholders.
14.Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage is a bipartisan policy area that I am
working on with my Republican colleagues. Senator Graham and I visited the
world’s first Carbon Capture project in Canada that has been operational since
2014. In 2016, SaskPower successfully captured and injected 800,000 metric tons
of carbon dioxide and the facility has operated nearly 85 percent of the time.
Recently, Petra Nova in Texas became the first United States first post-

200

 combustion carbon capture project to begin operation. SaskPower and Petra
Nova are listed in the Clean Power Plan as viable options for helping states reach
their Clean Power Plan targets. Do you believe that CCUS is a viable technology
for reducing emissions from power plants?
I believe CCUS technology can play an important role in the development of
our future coal fleet, however it is not yet a viable option. Both the
SaskPower and Petra Nova plants referenced in your question relied on
significant support from their respective governments to become
operational. Forcing private businesses to use unproven, expensive
technology would be unfair, which is why Congress provided for
protections against the EPA embracing such a practice in the Energy Policy
Act of 2005.
15.In Rhode Island we have BioProcess H2O in Portsmouth and Agcore
Technologies, LLC in Cranston that do carbon utilization—the conversion of
carbon dioxide into useable products and fuels. These technologies not only
capture carbon pollution, but can ease the demand of over-fishing by offering an
alternative source of oils and protein. The carbon pollution from the algae
production is creating and delivering algae-derived fish and animal feed. These
utilization technologies are available now and are reducing carbon emissions. We
also have retrofitted coal facilities using CCUS (SaskPower and Petra Nova). Do
you believe that CCUS should be pursued as an emission reduction technology
for the power sector and industrial sector?
Congress established clear directives the Administrator must consider
when setting new source performance standards under the Clean Air Act.
These directives are not technology specific, but instead require the
Administrator set standards based on the best system of emission
reduction that is technically feasible, achievable, adequately demonstrated
and considerate of costs. If confirmed, I will follow the Clean Air Act
process respective of the framework set by Congress.
16.According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2014, Oklahoma
ranked fourth in the nation in net electricity generation from wind, which provided
nearly 17% of the state’s net generation. The American Wind Energy Association
also estimates that wind power saved electricity customers in Oklahoma more
than $1.2 billion in 2013 and a study from the Oklahoma State University found
that wind companies have paid close to $134 million in property taxes to the state
since 2004, producing revenues for the state. Do you agree that wind energy has
saved Oklahomans money and brought revenues to the state? Do you agree that
wind energy is an important part of our future clean energy economy?
As I discussed at my nomination hearing, 17 percent of Oklahoma's
electricity is generated from wind, and as a state, we have a heavy emphasis

201

 on renewables in addition to oil and gas. Wind energy can be part of
successful, diverse, energy portfolio.
17.AWEA also found that the wind farms provided an additional $2.8 billion in
societal benefits each year to Southwest Power and that the wind power helped
save 3 billion in gallons of water in Oklahoma in 2013. The Windfall Coalition, a
group created by Continental Resources Inc. founder and CEO Harold Hamm is
trying to get rid of the Oklahoma’s incentives for wind energy, as they believe it is
a mature technology and doesn’t need incentives. Do you support the Coalition’s
efforts?
The decision on how to address state tax incentives for Oklahoma lies with
the State Legislature and, ultimately, the Governor.
18.According to the Wind Energy Association and Solar Energy Industries
Association, in 2016 the United States had 400,000 wind and solar jobs–310,000
solar, 88,000 wind. In contrast, according to 2016 DOE Energy Employment
Report, employment in oil and gas extraction was 388,000 and 53,000 in coal
mining. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) just found that coal
production continued to decline in 2016 down nearly 17% from 2015 production.
Its Annual Energy Outlook in 2017 reports that declining cost of natural gas is still
encouraging utilities to shift away from coal over the long-term. The change is
expected under our existing policies regardless of the Clean Power Plan. Do you
believe that dismantling the Clean Power Plan and cutting back on environmental
regulations will bring back the coal industry? Specifically, will it bring back coal
jobs and make coal the dominate source of electricity in the U.S. again?
I am unable to say whether United States utilities and electric cooperatives
would or would not return to coal as a predominant portion of their fuel mix
if the Clean Power Plan were revoked or other regulations were cut back.
The federal Energy Information Administration projects that coal will be an
important part of the American fuel mix for the foreseeable future.
19.The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to consult with an independent scientific
body, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, on air quality standards.
Congress has also directed EPA to establish and seek advice from an
independent Science Advisory Board. Do you intend to deviate from the current
appointment process for this advisory committee? Will you disclose professional
and political affiliations and political contributions of members that you appoint to
the committee? Do agree to maintain the existing structure of this committee and
current rules that are in place for the decision making of this committee?
I understand and appreciate the important role of EPA's independent
scientific bodies. I have no first-hand knowledge of the existing processes
or rules of the advisory committees referenced in the question and, if

202

 confirmed, I expect to learn more about these committees and commit to
follow applicable legal authorities.
20.Improved environmental quality and economic growth aren’t mutually
exclusive. Since 2009, the states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative (RGGI) have seen carbon pollution fall by 18% while their economies
grew by 9.2%. Emissions in the other 41 states fell by 4% while their economies
grew by 8.8%. Do you agree that RGGI has developed a successful model for
growing our states’ economies and cutting carbon pollution at the same time? Will
you commit to maintaining funding levels for EPA grant programs that fund state
level initiatives to reduce their emissions?
While the agreement between the states participating in RGGI appears to be
successful, what works for the Northeast may not achieve the same
success in, for example, the Southwest. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with EPA’s budget staff and program offices to develop a budget
focused on protecting human health and the environment for all
populations. I will work to ensure that the limited resources appropriated to
EPA by Congress are managed wisely in pursuit of that important mission
and in accordance with all applicable legal authorities.
21.EPA operates multiple networks to monitor compliance with the Clean Air Act’s
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and to track hazardous air pollutants
regulated under the act. These networks include, among others, the State and
Local Air Quality Monitoring Network, the National Air Monitoring Network (which
targets areas of high population density with a variety of air pollution sources),
Special Purpose Monitoring Stations (used for short-term studies and other
purposes), Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (used to measure
pollutants that contribute to ground-level ozone, a harmful air pollutant), and the
National Air Toxics Trends Stations. During our meeting you mentioned a desire
to increase resources for the Office of Research and Development, specifically
mentioning monitoring equipment in non-attainment areas. What is your vision for
monitoring? Do you plan to increase funding at EPA for these important
monitoring networks?
I agree that monitoring compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards is important to EPA's mission because it provides EPA with
concrete and policy relevant data concerning the attainment status of
communities throughout the country. If I am confirmed as Administrator, I
expect to assess the Agency's resource usage and regulatory priorities and
increased funding for air monitoring will be an area where I will consider
deploying additional resources.
22.Section 105 grants provide significant funding to states for implementing the
Clean Air Act requirements. Beginning in FY 2017, EPA is proposing a new
formula for how the 105 grants are distributed to each of the regional offices (and
subsequently to the states). Region 1, where Rhode Island receives its funding
from, will receive a smaller percentage of the total 105 funds under this revised
203

 formula. EPA is proposing an implementation approach that would limit regional
losses to no more than 2.5% from each region’s prior year amount. Region 1 will
lose 2.5% for, at least, each of the next five fiscal years and possibly ten years,
under this proposed approach. Will you commit to not implementing the new
formula until and unless there is sufficient overall funding such that no Region will
see reduced funding from the prior year’s amount?
If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will consider this and other resource
allocation issues and will use my best efforts to ensure that regional funds
are allocated equitably.
23.The National Environmental Policy Act has been a bedrock of our nation’s
environmental laws, ensuring that the environmental and community impacts of
major federal actions are properly understood, that alternatives are appropriately
considered, and that the public has the opportunity to actively participate in the
environmental review process. What is your view of NEPA and its associated
regulations, and will you commit to ensuring that the law, including the processes
it establishes to ensure meaningful public participation and informed decision
making, is in no way weakened?
I understand the National Environmental Policy Act established the White
House Council on Environmental Quality and generally a process for
considering the environmental impacts of federal actions. If confirmed, I will
faithfully execute all applicable laws as Administrator.
24. The EPA’s Office of Civil Rights has a long history of failing to comply with the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. To date, the office has never found a violation of Title VI,
which prohibits recipients of federal funding from acting in discriminatory ways. It
has also allowed complaints to linger for years without a response. What will you
do to ensure compliance by the EPA with the Civil Rights Act and to improve the
track record of the Office of Civil Rights?
If confirmed as Administrator, I would expect to be briefed by staff and
review any recommendations by the Office of Inspector General before
taking action on this issue.
25. EPA and States are co-implementers of many of our federal environmental
laws and programs. We believe that the tools used to implement these programs
should be updated, particularly at the State level, to ensure effective
implementation. Are there approaches, systems, or tools that you have
considered to improve these programs and investments you would like to make in
improvements that would benefit both federal and state environmental programs?
As I testified in the hearing, I have pursued opportunities to address
interstate environmental quality matters. One of the examples I have
highlighted is the work that Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and
204

 I took to address an enforceable water quality standard between Arkansas
and Oklahoma. I have also discussed how Texas should be responsible
when air quality issues affect Oklahoma and my experience with that. When
negotiations among and between states breakdown EPA has a role to set
environmental standards. However, that is should be a last course of action
instead of the first. I believe environmental statutes are designed with states
as a primary implementer. Environmental statutes envision that states have
the delegated enforcement and primacy to implement and enforce
environmental statutes. Only when that is not happening or when
negotiations between and among states breakdown should EPA determine a
dispute and only after attempting to assist states negotiate a local solution.
I am fond of saying that we need national standards and neighborhood
solutions. I think that should shape the work of the EPA.
26. Under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), in 2012, EPA issued New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to limit emissions of VOCs from new,
reconstructed, and modified sources in the oil and gas industry and finalized the
rule in August of 2015. EPA developed a regulatory impact analysis of the
regulation that estimated that the final standards for new and modified methane
sources will yield benefits of $690 million in 2025, which will outweigh estimated
costs of $530 million in 2025. Do you disagree with EPA’s regulatory analysis? If
you do, can you specify what information and analytics you use to justify your
position?
I am familiar with the rule and understand that regulatory impact analyses
play an important role in the EPA's rulemaking process. I also understand
certain statutes, executive orders, and federal guidance documents inform
the development of regulatory impact analyses. If confirmed, I commit to
work with EPA staff to ensure regulatory impact analyses follow the relevant
legal authorities.
27.In 2009, as mandated by the Supreme Court and backed by a robust scientific
and technical review, the Environmental Protection Agency produced the
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. It found six greenhouse gases - carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride - "taken in combination endanger both the public health and the
public welfare of current and future generations." You challenged the
endangerment finding in court and lost. Do you agree with the EPA's finding? Do
you commit to not take any steps as Administrator to narrow the scope or
otherwise weaken this finding?
If confirmed, I will fulfill the duties of the Administrator consistent with
Massachusetts v. EPA and the agency's Endangerment Finding on
Greenhouse Gases respective of the relative statutory framework
established by Congress. To my knowledge, there is nothing currently

205

 pending before the EPA that would require I take any additional actions on
the Endangerment Finding and if there were, it would not be wise to
prejudge the outcome.
28.There appears to be clear benefit from the regulation of methane emissions
from the oil and gas sector. Can you discuss your views on the techniques used in
the regulatory impact analysis for the NSPS for new oil and gas wells to quantify
the cost and benefits of the regulation? Do you commit to maintaining the same
metrics like emissions reductions, monetized climate benefits and health cobenefits, economic effects, employment benefits when designing new
rulemakings?
I am familiar with the role and understand that regulatory impact analyses
play an important role in the EPA's rulemaking process. I also understand
certain statutes, executive orders, and federal guidance documents inform
the development of regulatory impact analyses. If confirmed, I commit to
work with EPA staff to ensure regulatory impact analyses follow relevant
legal authorities.
29.The regulatory impact analysis for the methane emissions estimates that the
rule could also reduce 210,000 short tons of ozone-forming VOCs in 2025, along
with 3,900 tons of air toxics, such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.
Industry frequently talks about the costs to polluters of meeting public health
standards while ignoring the costs to people harmed by the effects of pollution like
the formation of ozone. Do you believe EPA should look at only the costs to the
polluters when undertaking its regulatory impact analysis? Should the costs to
families, such as children sent to emergency rooms due to asthma attacks
triggered by smog, be included in the analysis? If so, should those costs be given
a different weight than those claimed by industry?
I am familiar with the rule and understand that regulatory impact analyses
play an important role in the EPA's rulemaking process. I also understand
certain statutes, executive orders, and federal guidance documents inform
the development of regulatory impact analyses. If confirmed, I commit to
work with EPA staff to ensure regulatory impact analyses follow relevant
legal authorities.
30.As you know, methane emissions from industry are as much as 90% higher
than EPA had initially estimated, as has been demonstrated by academic peerreviewed studies. New information is currently being sent to EPA, as part of the
Information Collection Request (ICR), on methane emissions from existing
sources. How do you plan to use the information collected? How do you plan to
lead the agency in addressing this significant spike in known methane emissions?
Section 114 of the CAA provides the Administrator of the EPA to collect
emissions data from existing sources. If confirmed, I will review the ICR
206

 currently underway regarding methane emissions and examine the
submitted data to determine the appropriate next steps.
31.You have been quoted previously, “my concern is that EPA is employing its
flawed methodology in order to rationalize new and unjustified federal regulations
to solve a methane-emissions problem that simply does not exist.” Science has
shown us that methane’s effect on climate change is up to 34 times greater than
that of CO2 when averaged over a 100-year time period and even greater when
considered over the first 20 years after it is emitted. Additionally, a recent
Geophysical Research Letter article found that the U.S. could be responsible for
the 30% to 60% increase in atmospheric methane emissions since 2002. Can you
clarify what you mean that a methane-emissions problem does not exist? Do you
refute the argument that human’s development of oil and gas has led to more
methane emissions? The U.S., Canada, and Mexico have all pledged to work
together in reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector between 40%
to 45% by 2025. If you are confirmed as Administrator, do you intend to work with
the State Department to honor our international methane commitments?
It is my understanding that even EPA's revised methane data shows a
decrease in methane emissions from oil and natural gas development since
2005, during a time period of a large increase in domestic energy
development. EPA's data is based on a number of assumptions that, if
confirmed, I will review carefully prior to making any prejudgments of future
actions.
32.The State Department and others have assessed life-cycle emissions for
various crude oils and found tar sands crude is one of the dirtiest crudes on the
planet from a GHG perspective. Do you agree tar sands crude has significantly
higher life-cycle emissions than Oklahoma Sweet and most other crude oils?
The lifetime emissions of any energy source should be considered in the
context of necessary extraction techniques as well as transportation of the
fuel, among other issues. For example, transporting crude via pipeline
clearly creates fewer emissions than transporting it via other sources in
terms of fossil fuel energy. Without knowing the specifics of all of these
factors in a given instance, it is difficult to identify which sources may result
in greater emissions.
33.The State Department conducted a comprehensive economic and
environmental analysis of the project and determined that under the current
market conditions and those projected for the next few years, Keystone XL is key
to getting tar sands crude to market. The EPA agreed with this conclusion. Do you
agree? If not, why?

207

 I am not familiar with the State Department study but with over 2.4 million
miles of pipeline in the United States as well as other transportation
methods for moving goods and energy resources it is my understanding
that oil sands development has continued despite the lack of approval for
the Keystone XL's cross-border permit.
34.Many of Keystone XL’s proponents suggested that rejecting the project would
simply divert more tar sands to rail to the Gulf Coast. Were you aware that
according to the Energy Information Administration, shipments of Canadian crude
by rail to the Gulf Coast have declined since Keystone XL was rejected, from
64,000 barrels per day in 2015 to 45,000 barrels per day in 2016?
I am not familiar with that particular EIA data.
35.The State Department found that the emissions associated with the production,
refining and combustion of the tar sands in Keystone XL would result in 147 to
168 million metric tons (MMT) CO2e per year (equivalent to the emissions from as
many as 35.5 million cars). The State Department also found that by displacing
conventional crude with dirtier tar sands, the project would result in 1.3 - 27.4
MMT CO2e of additional emissions (equivalent to the emissions from as many as
5.7 million cars). Do you agree? If you disagree, please identify any research
studies or experts you have consulted to form your opinion.
I am familiar with multiple State Department determinations that the
Keystone XL pipeline would not significantly impact climate change.
36.In a recent study, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that
diluted bitumen—the type of crude that would be primarily transported by
Keystone XL—has a series of properties that, taken together, make tar sands
spills of greater concern for spill responders than spills of other, commonly
transported crude oils. Both EPA and the Coast Guard advised the scientists on
the NAS committee. Do you agree with their conclusion that tar sands spills pose
greater risks and challenges for spill responders than other crude oil spills? If you
disagree, please identify any research studies or experts you have consulted to
form your opinion.
Diluted bitumen has been transported safely by pipeline in the United States
for more than 40 years. It is my understanding that he NAS report did not
infer that the Keystone XL pipeline posed significant concerns or that
diluted bitumen could not be safely transported via pipelines or other forms
of transportation.
37.The NAS committee also found that there are no known, effective strategies for
recovering tar sands bitumen than has been spilled in a waterbody and sunk. Do
208

 you agree? If you disagree, please identify any research studies or experts you
have consulted to form your opinion.
I have no information in supporting or challenging this assertion.
38. The NAS committee also found that regulations and agency practices do not
take the unique properties of diluted bitumen tar sands into account, nor do they
encourage effective planning for spills of diluted bitumen. Do you agree? If you
disagree, please identify any research studies or experts you have consulted to
form your opinion.
EPA is not the primary regulator of pipelines, this question would more
appropriately be posed to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration.
39.The State Department’s EIS found that Keystone XL’s leak detection system is
unlikely to identify leaks smaller than half a million gallons a day. Given the
increased risks of tar sands spills and Keystone XL’s proposed route through the
Ogallala aquifer, should the EPA play an active role in ensuring that the water our
nation’s ranchers and farmers rely on is protected?
EPA should play an active role in ensuring protection of our domestic water
supply.
40.The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has raised concerns regarding
the effect that Keystone XL and the tar sands it carries will have on the air quality
of Gulf Coast refinery communities. Do you believe that the EPA should take a
role to ensure that projects like Keystone XL do not put our communities at risk of
asthma, cancer and other serious illnesses?
I am aware that EPA has a role in implementing the National Environmental
Policy Act, and other statutory responsibilities as it relates to infrastructure
projects like pipelines. If confirmed as Administrator, I will work to faithfully
execute the laws EPA is responsible for administering in order to protect
human health and the environment for all Americans.
41. Do you believe that Native Americans, landowners, farmers, ranchers and
communities affected by projects like Keystone XL should have the opportunity to
have their concerns considered and address as part of an environmental review
process?
Yes.

209

 42.Based on the climate change implications, spill potential, and other factors, the
Obama Administration determined Keystone XL isn't in our nation's best interest.
Do you agree? If not, why?
While the Obama Administration failed to grant the cross-border permit
required to complete the Keystone XL pipeline, much of the pipeline was
built in accordance with applicable laws and permits both federal and state.
A large portion of the Keystone XL pipeline safely operates through
Oklahoma and I believe that safely and efficiently moving natural resources
through the country is very important.
43.If confirmed, do you commit to ensuring EPA fully considers and articulates the
environmental implications, based on the best-available science and in
accordance with EPA's authority under the National Environmental Policy Act,
when determining how to proceed on the Keystone XL Pipeline and any other
projects?
If confirmed, I will faithfully execute all applicable laws as Administrator.
44.According to EPA 49% of coal units lack the most advanced NOx controls
(Selective Catalytic Reduction systems or SCR). Several units that have SCR or
other NOx emission control technology installed are not optimizing their use. For
example, these six coal units have SCR installed but are not using it to optimize
NOx reductions. In 2015, these facilities’ NOx emissions were significantly higher
than 2009 because they are not using the systems they have in place to reduce
NOx. EPA estimates it costs facilities $500/ton NOx pollution to optimize the
reduction of NOx from an SCR and $1300/ton to restart a SCR unit. Do you think
these facilities should be regulated to keep on their NOx controls on?
If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will consider all matters presented to
me with an open mind and will work to reach conclusions that are reflected
in the administrative record of each matter and that comport with
Congress's intent in enacting the Act. That includes evaluating your
concerns regarding the use of post-combustion NOx controls if and when
they are presented to me in a matter before the Agency.
45.Industry frequently talks about the costs to polluters of meeting public health
standards while ignoring the costs to people harmed by the effects of pollution. In
Rhode Island these effects cannot be ignored as we seen them through rising
seas and bad air days for Rhode Islanders. Because Rhode Island ozone air
quality issues are largely due to transported emissions from upwind states leading
to ozone formation that pollutes the air and lungs of people in downwind states
like mine. Over the past two years in Rhode Island, the 8-hour standard ozone
standard exceeded 0.07 ppm 10 times in 2015 and 6 times in 2016. With respect
210

 to ozone, do you believe EPA should look at only the costs to the polluters when
undertaking its regulatory impact analysis? Should the costs to families, such as
children sent to emergency rooms due to asthma attacks triggered by smog, be
included in the analysis? If so, should those costs be given a different weight than
those claimed by industry?
Under the Clean Air Act, while setting NAAQS for criteria pollutants, cost
cannot be considered. This is because human health is the primary focus of
these standards. EPA’s regulatory impact analyses have typically
addressed what you describe as “costs to families” in the benefits portion
of the analysis (i.e., the value of public health and environmental effects
avoided).
46.EPA’s independent science advisers, leading medical groups like the American
Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Thoracic
Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, and leading
public-interest groups such as the NAACP called for a 60 ppb standard instead of
the 70 ppb standard EPA finalized last year. What was your scientific basis for
concluding that the old standard, 75 ppb, was sufficient to protect public health?
Can you explain what sources you consulted? What groups you discussed this
with?
Due to a number of factors and steps taken by the previous Administration,
implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS did not begin until years later.
States had only recently begun to implement the 75ppb standard for
ground-level ozone when EPA changed it; considering that approximately
40 percent of the country was in nonattainment for the 2008 standard, I
believe EPA should focus on helping those areas meet that standard.
Oklahoma’s challenge to the most recent ozone NAAQS was based, in part,
on concerns that EPA has not adequately assessed the available science. It
is EPA’s obligation to properly justify any change to an existing NAAQS.
47.Rhode Island ozone air quality issues are largely due to transported emissions
from upwind states leading to ozone formation that pollutes the air and lungs of
people in downwind states like mine. The Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management told me that there remain a number of power plants
located in upwind states that have pollution control equipment installed to reduce
nitrogen oxides emissions that either do not use that equipment during the ozone
season or do not use it in a way that optimizes the reduction of nitrogen oxides
emissions. Why would this be the case?
I am unfamiliar with the specifics as to why certain sources upwind of
Rhode Island may not be using control devices in particular ways. CSAPR
and related rules are designed to address emissions from upwind states

211

 that significantly contribute to nonattainment in downwind states. EPA
presumably considered emissions from the upwind power plants referenced
in your question in formulating the existing requirements.
48.Each year, RIDEM issues “ozone alerts” to warn vulnerable Rhode Islanders to
stay indoors to protect their health on hot days when air quality is poor. This is a
problem that cannot be solved in the state because masses of polluted air are
coming from upwind. The health of Rhode Island citizens depends on a strong
federal EPA program to impose pollution controls on NOx, particulates, and other
mobile and stationary sources of pollution. What will you do to support the federal
air quality programs? Will you commit to keep existing funding levels for the clean
air programs that impose and regulate pollution controls and protect Rhode
Islanders?
If confirmed, I will work to administer the statute and applicable federal
programs in accordance with Congressional intent. I look forward to
working with EPA's budget staff and program offices to develop a budget
focused on fulfilling EPA's mission to protect human health and the
environment for all populations. I will work to ensure that the resources
appropriated to EPA by Congress are managed wisely in pursuit of the
Agency's important mission and in accordance with all applicable legal
authorities.
49.Ozone levels in RI are strongly affected by the transport of pollutants emitted in
upwind states into RI. Although RI is currently designated as an
unclassifiable/attainment area for the ozone NAAQS, monitored ozone levels in
the State still exceed the standard on a number of days in the summer months.
The Ozone Transport Region (OTR) states, including RI, have implemented a
number of programs to reduce pollutant emissions from mobile and stationary
sources in their states, as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). RI and other OTR
states were required by the CAA to implement emissions control programs not
mandated in upwind states, resulting in increased energy costs and an inequitable
economic burden to industry in the OTR states. Any additional emissions
reduction programs that could be adopted in the OTR to further reduce ozone
levels in the region would be less cost-effective than implementing OTR controls
in upwind states and would further this inequity. What steps will you take to
address the transport of pollutants emitted in upwind states that contribute to
exceedances of the ozone standard in RI and other OTR states?
Interstate transport of pollutants is a concern. An upwind state that
contributes to a downwind state's inability to meet air quality standards
should take responsibility. It is EPA's responsibility to address such issues,
and, if confirmed, I look forward to working on this issue.

212

 50.The intent of the establishment of the RFS in the Energy Policy Act was to
enhance U.S. energy security by displacing some imported petroleum with
domestically produced ethanol. In your estimation, has the RFS reduced imports
of foreign oil?
As Congress indicated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, domestic production of renewable fuel contributes to our nation's
"greater energy independence and security."
51.President-elect Trump has said, “The RFS, which is Renewable Fuel Standard,
is an important tool in the mission to achieve energy independence for the United
States. I will do all that is in my power as president to achieve that goal….Energy
independence is a requirement of America’s to become great again. My theme is
“Make America Great Again”; it’s an important part of it.” Do you hold the same
beliefs as President-elect Trump about the RFS? If not, can you be specific where
your views differ on this policy?
As Congress indicated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, domestic production of renewable fuel contributes to our nation's
"greater energy independence and security." To that end, if confirmed, I will
work to administer the RFS program in accordance with statute and
Congressional intent.
52.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who has been supportive of the RFS, made
a statement in Bloomberg Markets, “There's going to be a lot of saber-rattling, but
it supports too many jobs and too much rural infrastructure is set up for it. The
Renewable Fuel Standard is solid.” Do you agree that the RFS has supported
jobs . and helped develop our rural infrastructure?
Yes.
53.You have been quoted, “It should come as no surprise that I am working
diligently with Oklahoma energy companies, the people of Oklahoma and the
majority of attorneys general to fight the unlawful overreach of the EPA and other
federal agencies.” Do you think that the renewable fuel standard is one of those
unlawful overreach regulations from the EPA? Can you explain in more detail the
type of overreach you are talking about when it comes to the EPA and other
federal agencies?
The RFS was first enacted by Congress in 2005 and updated and expanded
in 2007 to promote domestic production and achieve energy independence.
Therefore, I do not consider it to be "one of those unlawful overreach
regulations from the EPA." The EPA needs to better administer this program

213

 to provide involved entities with the certainty they need, and, if confirmed, i
will administer the RFS in accordance with statute and Congressional
intent.
54. You have been quoted in the press saying, “The American people are tired of
seeing billions of dollars drained from our economy due to unnecessary EPA
regulations, and I intend to run this agency in a way that fosters both responsible
protection of the environment and freedom for American businesses.” Do you see
the RFS as one of those unnecessary EPA regulations that is draining money
from our economy?
The RFS was first enacted by Congress in 2005 and updated and expanded
in 2007 to promote domestic production and achieve energy independence.
The EPA needs to better administer this program to provide involved
entities with the certainty they need, and, if confirmed, I will administer the
RFS in accordance with statute and Congressional intent.
55.The RFS has been a significant factor in growing the volumes of biodiesel and
other advanced biofuels. In light of the uncertainty surrounding the Biodiesel Tax
Credit and the increased volume of biodiesel imported from Argentina, do you
intend to support the RFS and continue to increase the Renewable Volume
Obligations (RVOs) that provide the long term market stability to support
investment and increase the jobs available in a growing domestic industry? Do
you commit to making all economic and pricing models used in developing the
annual blending targets under the RFS available to the public? If you come across
models that were used in the past that were left out of the public record, will you
make those available? Do you intend to use EIA data in conjunction with your
administration of the RFS? Are there other data sources that you intend to rely
on?
If confirmed, I will administer the RFS in accordance with statute and
Congressional intent. There has been significant investment that has gone
into the infrastructure following the enactment of the RFS in 2005, and these
individuals need certainty that the EPA has failed to provide in the past,
from the trading program to monitoring the fraud in the system, to faith that
the program will be enforced and administered as Congress intended. The
Clean Air Act requires the Administrator of the EIA to submit annual
projections of transportation fuel, biomass-based diesel, and cellulosic
biofuel to be sold or introduced into commerce into the United States, and I
will commit to continue relying on EIA data projections to set annual volume
obligations.
56.It has been estimated that the RFS supports roughly 850,000 jobs across the
country and many of those jobs rely on certainty from the EPA setting its volume

214

 requirements for the renewable fuels each year. If confirmed to serve as EPA
Administrator, will you carry out the Energy Policy Act as passed in 2005 and
updated in 2007, particularly adopting the statutory volume requirements for
renewable fuels?
Section 211(0) of the Clean Air Act contains enumerated tables of applicable
target volumes of renewable fuel for calendar years 2006 through 2022. If
confirmed, I will work to administer the RFS program in accordance with
statute and Congressional intent.
57.The RFS has driven investment in low carbon biofuels in our country. Are you
committed to working to achieve the gains in advanced and cellulosic biofuels
promised under the statue?
Section 211(0) of the Clean Air Act contains enumerated tables of applicable
target volumes of renewable fuel, specifically cellulosic and advanced, for
calendar years 2006 through 2022. If confirmed, I will work to administer this
program in accordance with statute and Congressional intent.
58. Following the Sixth Circuit's stay of the Clean Water Rule in 2015 pending
further court action, the EPA and Army Corps issued a joint memorandum that
states the agencies 1) "look forward to vigorously defending the merits of the
Clean Water Rule, which we continue to believe is fully consistent with the law
and based on the best available peer-reviewed science," 2) "intend to move
forward with measures to improve implementation of the national CWA section
404 program that were announced concurrent with the Rule," 3) will continue their
commitment to improve transparency through making section 404 decisions public
and making a number of other improvements to the section 404 permit program,
4) strengthen coordination between the agencies, and 5) "work closely with the
Department of Justice to ensure [their] actions remain consistent with the stay." If
confirmed as EPA Administrator, will you uphold the tenets of this memorandum?
If not, what would you change in the EPA's pursuance of clean water and
cooperative relationship with the Army Corps of Engineers? Will you commit to
working collaboratively with the Army Corps under its corresponding section 404
and other Clean Water Act authorities to ensure clean water for all Americans? If
confirmed as EPA Administrator, would you advise DOJ to stop defending the rule
and instead ask the court to set aside the rule and send it back to the agencies for
reconsideration? Do you disagree with the process the EPA used in developing
the Clean Water Rule, which involved incorporating the best available science and
feedback received through around 400 public meetings and over 1 million public
comments?
If confirmed I will support efforts of the Corp to improve transparency
through making section 404 decisions public and to strengthen

215

 coordination between the agencies. However, I do not support the WOTUS
rule and do not believe that it is consistent with the Clean Water
Act. Accordingly, if confirmed, I will take appropriate steps, in accordance
with the Administrative Procedure Act, to withdraw the rule and replace it
with a rule that is within the authority granted to EPA and the Corps under
the Clean Water Act and is promulgated in compliance with the APA, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Executive Order 13132 on
Federalism, and Executive Order 12866 on regulatory planning and review,
procedural requirements that I believe were not met in the promulgation of
the WOTUS rule. If confirmed, I also would inform the appropriate courts of
these actions.
59. In the wake of SWANCC, Rapanos, and other decisions, how would you
shape regulations and internal EPA policy to provide more certainty for regulated
parties on how the agency will make section 404 permitting decisions?
EPA does not make 404 permitting decisions. Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act grants that authority to the Secretary of the Army, who carries it
out acting through the Corps of Engineers. Under section 404(c) EPA has
the authority to veto a Corps-issued permit if it EPA determines the
discharge will have unacceptable adverse effects. If confirmed, I will seek
to clarify when it is appropriate for EPA to use its 404 veto authority.
60.If you choose to pursue a renewed rulemaking to clarify “waters of the United
States,” will you follow the same procedure and commit to at least the same level
of outreach the EPA undertook in developing the Clean Water Rule in developing
a new rule?
If confirmed, I will ensure that the outreach performed by EPA is not only
extensive, but meaningful.
61.Extreme weather events put water and wastewater infrastructure at risk. In
Rhode Island, Super Storm Sandy almost caused Narragansett Bay to breach the
water supply for the City of Newport. The March 2010, storms flooded the
Pawtuxet River, overtopping the Warwick Wastewater Treatment facility and
sending untreated wastewater into surrounding neighborhoods, the River and
Narragansett Bay. What do you see as EPA’s role in helping cities and towns
respond to these increasingly frequent extreme weather events and ensure the
safety of the nation’s critical water and wastewater infrastructure?

216

 EPA provides water and wastewater infrastructure assistance through the
Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act revolving loan funds and
through the new WIFIA loan program.
62.What role can green infrastructure play in helping municipalities manage and
prevent sewer overflows and other storm water and wastewater treatment
concerns?
Green infrastructure is a neighborhood solution that can help meet national
standards.
63.In making recommendations for revisions to state shares of Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) money, do you support increasing allocations for states
with the oldest infrastructure?
No. I am not aware of any analysis that suggests that age of infrastructure is
an appropriate metric that predicts funding needs for wastewater
infrastructure. It was not suggested in the May 2016 Report to Congress
from EPA on its review of the CWSRF allotment formula, required by section
5005 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of
2014. I also note that the formula is established by law and only Congress
can change it.
64.Sea level in Newport, RI has risen over 10 inches since 1930, Rhode Island
experiences significantly more rain and more intense storms than in past
decades, and Superstorm Sandy and the Flood of 2010 destroyed roads and
buildings. The RI Department of Environmental Management is finalizing an
assessment of the vulnerability of each wastewater treatment facility in the state
from damage due to flooding and storm surge. Will states have the ability to
choose to use State Revolving Fund monies to finance resiliency projects under
the next Administration? What restrictions, if any, would you foresee putting on
the use of these funds for this purpose?
The eligibilities for the use of CWSRF funds are established in the Clean
Water Act. If confirmed, I will manage that program as authorized by
Congress.
65.States rely on EPA funding, technical assistance, and other resources to help
keep the air, water, and soil clean, particularly through the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants and Categorical Grants. State agencies like the RIDEM have
delegated authority to carry out federal pollution control laws. Based on what you
know about the EPA, do you believe states and tribes are getting enough money
from the federal government to support clean air and clean water investments and

217

 enforcement? If confirmed, will you commit to ensuring states and tribes continue
to receive at least the amounts of funding they do now? Are there programs that
support states and tribes that you would consider cutting or increasing financial
support for?
I support the federalism structure of our federal environmental laws, which
includes state delegation or authorization of most programs, and EPA STAG
grants to help states implement those programs. If confirmed, I will seek to
reduce the workload on states by refraining from adding more and more
requirements for them to implement and to instead allow them to focus on
implementing core environmental programs relating to air, water, and
waste. I am not familiar with the development of EPA's FY 2018 budget so I
cannot comment on that proposal, but please be assured that I support
funding for states.
66.A 2016 Associated Press study of EPA data identified Providence, RI as “one
of the largest [drinking water systems] in the country to exceed a federal lead
standard since 2013.” Almost 20 percent of all retail customers’ homes were
found to be serviced by utility-owned lead lines. EPA’s lead limit before corrective
action is required is currently 15 parts per billion. The city’s water supply was
found to be over this limit six times since 2010. Providence’s water hit 30 parts per
billion in tests in 2009 and 2013. Providence has shown marked improvement
since those peaks, but there is still millions of dollars of investment needed in the
city’s drinking water infrastructure to reduce the risk of lead. What role do you
believe EPA should play supporting these investments?
I would urge the City to explore funding opportunities available from the
new WIFIA loan program, which is implemented by EPA.
67.What have you done in your career to demonstrate lead contamination of
drinking water will be a priority if you are confirmed as EPA Administrator? Please
cite specific examples.
I am concerned about children’s health, but the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board have
primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing environmental laws
in Oklahoma, so issues relating to lead contamination of drinking water
would fall within their responsibilities. If confirmed as Administrator, I will
faithfully execute all environmental laws enacted by Congress, including the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
68.In an interview with the Providence Journal last April, Rhode Island’s chief of
the Center for Drinking Water Quality at the RI Department of Health stated that
“[i]n the last monitoring period, we had six small water systems exceed the lead
action level. Five were school systems.” These systems were brought back into
218

 compliance, but the concern remains. How will you prioritize lead abatement in
schools and among the most vulnerable populations?
If confirmed, I will fully carry out EPA's authorities, including its authorities
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. I note that in the WIIN Act, Congress
amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to authorize funding for voluntary
school lead testing. If confirmed and if funding is provided, I will carry out
that program.
69.EPA’s regulations on lead in drinking water, otherwise known as the Lead and
Copper Rule, were last revised in 2007. In its October 2016 white paper on
revising the rule, the EPA recognized “[t]here is a compelling need to modernize
and strengthen implementation of the rule—to strengthen its public health
protections and to clarify its implementation requirements to make it more
effective and more readily enforceable.” Do you agree the Rule is in need of
updating to reflect the latest science?
Yes.
70.Do you believe all covered water systems should follow EPA’s drinking water
analytical methods when testing drinking water for contamination? If so, what
efforts will you undertake to ensure all water systems are brought into
compliance?
If confirmed, I will fully carry out EPA's authorities, including its authorities
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. To achieve this, I will focus on EPA’s
core missions, such as provision of safe drinking water.
71.In a November 2016 interview with the New York Times, President-elect
Trump specifically called out “crystal clear water” as a priority. Do you agree
“crystal clear water” should be a priority of the EPA? If so, please list the specific
steps you would take as Administrator to make the President-elect’s vision a
reality.
Yes, I agree that clean water is a priority of the EPA. If confirmed, I will
ensure that EPA focuses on the core missions as directed under laws
enacted by Congress, including clean water and safe drinking water.
72.Over 40,000 water bodies in the United States are considered “impaired” under
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, meaning they do not meet water quality
and health standards. Six hundred and thirty-five of these are in Oklahoma. What
specifics steps did you take as Attorney General and as a state legislator to
improve the water quality in these impaired waters in Oklahoma?

219

 Regulation of water quality in Oklahoma is the responsibility of Oklahoma's
environmental regulators at agencies like the Oklahoma Water Resources
Board and Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Those agencies
would be best situated to describe the actions taken by Oklahoma to
improve water quality in impaired waters.
73.What clean water initiatives undertaken by the EPA in the last five years do
you support?
I support the Mach 2011 nutrient framework issued by the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Water entitled "Working in Partnership with
States to Address Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution through Use of a
Framework for State Nutrient Reductions," which prioritizes state action to
encourage on the ground activities over establishment of numeric nutrient
limits. I support EPA's May 2012 Integrated Municipal Stormwater and
Wastewater Planning Framework, which directs EPA enforcement and
permitting officials to allow municipalities to integrate multiple CWA
responsibilities in a single plan and prioritize the actions with the greatest
health and environmental benefits, and to allow extended compliance
schedules to carry out that prioritization. I support EPA's efforts to promote
green infrastructure to meet Clean Water Act requirements. Green
infrastructure can be a neighborhood solution to meet national standards. I
support the new Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan
program authorized by Congress in 2014 that recently received its first
appropriations. The WIFIA program creates tremendous opportunities to
increase water and wastewater infrastructure investment because every
federal dollar appropriated can leverage as much as $60 in infrastructure
investments.
74.How will you address EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permitting backlog without undermining any environmental protections or
subverting the goals of the Clean Water Act?
First, I would note that at the end of FY 2016, 96.9 percent of Oklahoma's
permits were current. Making sure permits are current is one of core
functions under the statutory responsibilities given to EPA and in turn
carried out by authorized states. However, in recent years states have been
asked to shift their focus and resources to other activities. If confirmed, I
would return EPA's focus to ensuring that core functions under our
environmental laws are carried out.

75.Factory farming of animals is known to cause multiple forms of pollution, such
as contaminating local groundwater with nitrates, contributing to hypoxia and
“dead zones” in rivers and coastal waters, and releasing the potent greenhouse
220

 gas methane. Considering your close ties with the animal agriculture industry in
Oklahoma, your previous history of unsuccessfully prosecuting lawsuits against
states with animal welfare laws, your opposition of EPA’s attempt to conduct a
survey of CAFOs, and your pursuit of punitive yet failed investigations of nonprofit
advocacy groups working for animal welfare, do you believe you should recuse
yourself from any decisions related to enforcing the CWA and CAA to the fullest
extent of the law against these facilities? If not, will you commit to disclosing to the
EPW Committee any solicitations you have made to interested parties before you
make any decisions related to this topic? If not, what assurances can you provide
that you will be able to discharge your duties in this area impartially?
If confirmed, I will faithfully execute the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act
as enacted by Congress. My track record with regard to CAFOs, which
includes suing a CAFO together with EPA and collecting what EPA at the
time said was the largest civil penalty ever assessed against a CAFO for
CWA violations, demonstrates that I can, and will, approach such issues
with a fair and open mind.
76.Explain your reasons for opposing EPA’s 2012 attempt to conduct a survey of
CAFOs. Has your thinking changed since then? Please explain why or why not.
For the purpose of this response, I am assuming that you are referring to
EPA's 2011 proposed animal feeding operation reporting rule, published at
76 Fed. Reg. 65431 (October 21, 2011), and the January 19, 2012 comments
on that proposed rule filed by 12 state attorneys general, including myself.
This proposed rule is an example of an attempt to impose new regulatory
requirements without complying with either the law or proper administrative
process. Under the Clean Water Act, only facilities that discharge pollutants
can be regulated. Despite this limitation on EPA's authority, it had twice
before attempted to regulate non-discharging facilities. In 2005, the Second
Circuit vacated parts of EPA's 2003 CAFO rule that purported to require
non-discharging CAFOs to apply for permits. Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 399 F. 3d 486. In 2011, the
Fifth Circuit vacated the part of EPA's 2008 CAFO rule that would have
required all CAFOs "proposing to discharge" to apply for NPDES permits
regardless of whether they had actual discharges. National Pork Producers
Council v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 635 F. 3d 738
(5th Cir. 2011). Further, EPA's authority to require reporting (section 308 of
the CWA) applies only to point sources that discharge. That was made clear
by the 8th Circuit in Service Oil, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency,
590 F. 3d 545 (8th Cir. 2009). Despite the clear limitations of the Clean Water
Act, in the CAFO reporting rule EPA proposed to require facilities that are
not subject to the Clean Water Act to submit reports to EPA. As such, that
proposed rule exceeded EPA's authority.

221

 77.According to the CDC, in 2014 Oklahoma reported the second highest rate of
exposure to pesticides in the nation. At a time when pesticide/herbicide usage is
on the rise across the country, how would you protect American workers,
consumers, and landscapes from the toxic effects of agricultural chemicals?
I am not personally familiar with the data referenced in this question or
generally the rate of pesticide usage in Oklahoma. If confirmed as
Administrator, I would expect to be briefed by EPA staff before taking action
on this issue and would work to ensure EPA followed all applicable legal
requirements and made its decisions based on sound science in an open
and transparent process.
78.Your close ties to the fossil fuel industry have given a strong appearance of
pay-to-play politics favorable to that industry. As you well know, the agrichemical
and seed biotechnology industry has a similar history of major lobbying, campaign
financing, and maintaining close relationships with lawmakers and agency
administrators. Monsanto, the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, and other agricultural
interests contributed more than $90,000 to your previous campaigns. Do you
believe you should recuse yourself from any decisions related to this industry? If
not, will you commit to disclosing to the EPW Committee any solicitations you
have made to interested parties before you make any decisions related to this
topic? If not, what assurances can you provide that you will be able to discharge
your duties in this area impartially?
It is my understanding that recusal obligations do not extend to regulatory
rulemaking of general applicability, which does not create a conflict under
applicable rules. In any matters involving specific parties where I believe
that my impartiality may be questioned, I will consult with relevant federal
ethics officials to determine whether to participate in a particular matter,
provide them with all relevant facts, and follow their guidance. Following
these procedures, along with all the other commitments I have made to
comply with applicable ethics rules, will ensure that I discharge my duties
impartially.
79.How should the EPA consider the synergistic effects of chemicals when
considering approval of these chemicals under FIFRA?
If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by staff about EPA's relevant legal
authorities concerning pesticide registration and current practices in this
area before taking any action.
80.The Fish and Wildlife Service recently listed the rusty patched bumble bee as
endangered, the first wild bee in the lower 48 states to receive this distinction.
Pesticides were listed as part of the blame for the bee’s current status. Other

222

 bumble bee species are also at risk due to increased pesticide use and other
environmental challenges. How can the EPA assist in bettering the understanding
of pesticides’ role in declining bee and other pollinator species?

I am generally aware of the important role bees play as pollinators, but I am
not personally familiar with the details of the Endangered Species Act
listing decision referenced in the question. If confirmed as Administrator, I
would expect EPA to be briefed on the matter concerning EPA's legal
authorities and any ongoing activities in this area before taking action.
81.Under your leadership, what role will EPA play in the management and control
of vector borne illnesses like Zika?
If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by staff about EPA's relevant legal
authorities and operations in this area before taking any action.
82.With respect to the Rule of Law Defense Fund, please provide the following: A
written explanation of the role you or any person under your supervision has
played in the establishment and operation of the Fund; a list of all donors who
have contributed to the Fund since its inception, total donated, and their
affiliations; a list of all requests you have made for funding and what was given
and from whom in response; a list of all expenditures of over $1,000 made by the
Fund since its inception; details of any Fund expenditures over $100 that have
benefited you or any person under your supervision, including travel; all
communications, including e-mails, between you and the Fund and between you
and any individuals related to the establishment of the Fund or the conduct of the
Fund’s activities; a list of all meetings and fundraisers organized by or sponsored
in whole or in part by the Fund that you or any person under your supervision
attended, including the dates, locations, agendas and attendees; and a list of all
federal and state legislation or regulations the Fund has taken a position on,
Fund-organized legal briefs and letters to federal lawmakers, and all actions you
have taken with respect to those matters.
I did not play a role in founding or forming the Rule of Law Defense Fund,
and no one on my staff played such a role. My understanding from the time I
was a member of that entity’s board is that its staff operates the fund. A list
of contributors to the Fund since its inception is in the custody of RLDF and
I do not personally have records of or have knowledge of that information.
Expenditures by the fund are in the custody of RLDF, and I do not
personally have records of or have knowledge of that information. Any
records relating to requests for funding to individuals or to corporate
entities would be in the possession of RLDF. RLDF has paid for flights and
accommodations when I attended RLDF events or panel discussions.

223

 Because those flights or accommodations were booked directly by RLDF
staff, I am not in possession of any receipts for such flights or
accommodations.
83.Please list all matters you or your office has had with the US EPA since you
became Attorney General of Oklahoma. For the purposes of this and the following
questions, “matters” refers to lawsuits (including lawsuits in which your office filed
a “friend of the court” brief), enforcement actions, investigations, rulemakings, or
any other matter which included an adjudication between parties.
In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous
request of that nature requesting information on all matters, I would direct
you to make a request of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office under the
Oklahoma Open Records Act.
84.For each matter you identify in the previous question, please list the following:
The names of the attorneys in your office who worked on the matter, and the
names and affiliations of all attorneys with whom you or the attorneys in your
office had communications about the matter. The names and affiliations of any
person with whom you had communications about the matter, and the dates of the
communications, and a summary of the substance of that communication. For any
person listed the previous subpart, or corporation represented by that person, any
contribution or payment made to Scott Pruitt for Attorney General, the Republican
Attorney General Association, the Republican Attorney Generals Association, the
Rule of Law Defense Fund, Liberty 2.0, Oklahoma Strong, or any other political
action committee or 501(c)(4) organization with which you are or have been
affiliated in any way.
In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous
request of that nature requesting information on all matters, I would direct
you to make a request of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office and the
Oklahoma Ethics Commission under the Oklahoma Open Records Act and
the individual political organizations.
85.Please list all matters you or your office has had with the US Department of
Interior since you became Attorney General of Oklahoma. For the purposes of this
and the following questions, “matters” refers to lawsuits (including lawsuits in
which your office filed a “friend of the court” brief), enforcement actions,
investigations, rulemakings, or any other matter which included an adjudication
between parties.
In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous
request of that nature requesting information on all matters, I would direct

224

 you to make a request of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office under the
Oklahoma Open Records Act.
86.For each matter you identify in the previous question, please list the following:
The names of the attorneys in your office who worked on the matter, and the
names and affiliations of all attorneys with whom you or the attorneys in your
office had communications about the matter. The names and affiliations of any
person with whom you had communications about the matter, and the dates of the
communications, and a summary of the substance of that communication. For any
person listed the previous subpart, or corporation represented by that person, any
contribution or payment made to Scott Pruitt for Attorney General, the Republican
Attorney General Association, the Republican Attorney Generals Association, the
Rule of Law Defense Fund, Liberty 2.0, Oklahoma Strong, or any other political
action committee or 501(c)(4) organization with which you are or have been
affiliated in any way.
In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous
request of that nature requesting information on all matters, I would direct
you to make a request of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office and the
Oklahoma Ethics Commission under the Oklahoma Open Records Act and
the individual political organizations.
87.Please list all matters in which your office participated in any way challenging a
law, rule, or regulation of a state other than Oklahoma. For each matter listed,
please include the following: Your understanding of the effect of that law, rule, or
regulation on the people of Oklahoma. The names of the attorneys in your office
who worked on the matter, and the names and affiliations of all attorneys with
whom you or the attorneys in your office had communications about the matter.
The names and affiliations of any person with whom you had communications
about the matter, and the dates of the communications, and a summary of the
substance of that communication. For any person listed the previous subpart, or
corporation represented by that person, any contribution or payment made to
Scott Pruitt for Attorney General, the Republican Attorney General Association,
the Republican Attorney Generals Association, the Rule of Law Defense Fund,
Liberty 2.0, Oklahoma Strong, or any other political action committee or 501(c)(4)
organization with which you are or have been affiliated in any way.
In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous
request of that nature requesting information on all matters, I would direct
you to make a request of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office and the
Oklahoma Ethics Commission under the Oklahoma Open Records Act and
the individual political organizations.

225

 88. As Attorney General you have played a major rule challenging EPA’s Clean
Power Plan and seven other major rules protecting the public from air pollution,
water pollution, and toxic threats. Professional ethics rules prohibit attorneys from
changing sides, as you would be doing if confirmed. Federal ethical guidelines
specifically require that a public official should not act on a matter if a reasonable
person who knew the circumstances of the situation could legitimately question
his or her fairness. Will you commit to recusing yourself from substantive matters
that include EPA’s climate rules, its mercury and air toxics rules, its most recent
clean water rule, and others related to the eight pending cases you have against
EPA as an Attorney General?
It is my understanding that recusal obligations do not extend to regulatory
rulemaking of general applicability, which does not create a conflict under
applicable rules. With respect to my professional obligations as a member
of the bar, I am not permitted to “switch sides” as counsel in any matter in
which I participated as a lawyer. The standards that would apply to me as
EPA Administrator are different as I would not be representing the EPA as a
lawyer. Nonetheless, in any matters involving specific parties where I
believe that my impartiality may be questioned, I will consult with relevant
federal ethics officials to determine whether to participate in a particular
matter and provide them with all relevant facts.
89.You have taken credit for the lawsuit State of Oklahoma et al. v. Mahard Egg
Farm. What was the date on which the complaint in that case was filed? What are
the dates of the allegations in the case? Had any Oklahoma state agencies taken
any steps to investigate that matter before you became Attorney General? If so,
please specify the agencies, their roles investigating the case, and the dates on
which they were taken. Did the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office take any
steps to investigate that matter before you became Attorney General? If so,
please specify what was done and when. Please indicate the date on which the
Attorney General’s office first contacted defendant(s) in this matter.
As I have testified, it was a lawsuit that I initiated together with the State of
Texas and the EPA. The complaint was filed on May 23, 2011. The consent
decree was entered into on August 10, 2011. There was no case when I took
office, but the matter had been investigated by the Office of Attorney
General, the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, the EPA, and the State of
Texas. I do not know the first date that the Office of Attorney General first
contacted the defendants in that matter.
90.Have you ever met or spoken with Richard “Rick” Berman, who has been
affiliated with Center for Consumer Freedom? If so, please describe the
substance and dates of your communications with him. Did you or the Attorney
General’s Office during your tenure ever receive communications of any sort from

226

 Mr. Berman or the Center for Consumer Freedom? If so, please specify the date
and content of those communications.
I do not recall ever having met Mr. Berman. I am not aware of any
communications with Mr. Berman, but a request for such information can be
made to the Office of Attorney General pursuant to Oklahoma's Open
Records Act.
91.Before March 12, 2014, had your office received any complaints about the
Humane Society of the United States [HSUS] from a resident of the State of
Oklahoma? If so, please identify the date of the complaint, the allegations in the
complaint, and the city or town of residence of the complainant.
I believe that our office had received such a complaint, but I do not know the
residency of any such complainant. A request for such information can be
made to the Office of Attorney General pursuant to Oklahoma's Open
Records Act.
92.In March 2014, your office issued a consumer warning about HSUS. Based on
what evidence did you issue this warning? Did you or your office communicate to
any person or entity outside the Attorney General’s Office about the timing or
substance of your consumer warning about HSUS before it was issued? If so,
please state the names of those with whom you or your office communicated, the
dates, and the substance of those communications.
The consumer warning was based on information suggesting that HSUS's
solicitations for contributions might be misleading Oklahoma consumers. A
request for communications can be made to the Office of Attorney General
pursuant to Oklahoma's Open Records Act.
93.On July 1, 2014, your office issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to
HSUS. Based on what evidence did you issue that CID?
The purpose of a CID is to gather such evidence.
94.On or about July 21, 2014, after the New York Attorney General entered into a
settlement with the direct mailing firm Quadriga Art, you were quoted as saying
“We believe what happened in New York potentially has happened in Oklahoma.”
Based on what evidence did you make that statement? Did you issue a Civil
Investigative Demand or subpoena to any organizations other than HSUS as a
result in whole or in part because of the NYAG’s Quadriga Act settlement? If so,
please specify the names of the organizations, the dates of the CID, and the result
of any investigation conducted pursuant thereto. If not, what evidence did you
have that distinguished HSUS from any of the other clients of Quadriga Art?

227

 As I recall, the Office believed that Quadriga Art may have been the vendor
for direct mailers used by HSUS in Oklahoma. I am not aware of any other
CIDs issued as a result of the Quadriga Art settlement. I am not aware of the
Office having received any complaints or having any open investigations
relating to other Quadriga Art clients.
95.During the 2010 election cycle, did Devon Energy and Koch Industries max out
to your campaign? During the 2014 election cycle, when you ran unopposed, did
Devon, Koch Industries, and ExxonMobil max out to your campaign? How much
total money has “Scott Pruitt for Attorney General” received from fossil fuel and
agricultural interests? Please list your fossil fuel and agricultural donors, dates,
and amounts.
A full list of contributors to my campaigns for the state senate and attorney
general may be found at the Oklahoma Ethics Commission's websites. For
state campaign committee from 2002-2014, please use this
site: https://www.ok.gov/ethics/public/candidate.php. For 2015 to the
present, the Commission uses this
site: http://guardian.ok.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/Search.aspx?SearchTy
peCodeHook=1F26BA5E-71EA-48E4-8D50-C1013E9FE0A7. Attached is a
letter from the Oklahoma Ethics Commission regarding materials prior to
2002.
96.How much total money did Oklahoma Strong, your leadership PAC, receive
from fossil fuel and agricultural interests? Please list your fossil fuel and
agricultural donors, dates, and amounts.
I do not manage or control Oklahoma Strong PAC. Questions relating to its
donors would need to be directed to those who do.
97.How much total money did Liberty 2.0, the SuperPAC created to help get you
elected, receive from fossil fuel and agricultural interests? Please list your fossil
fuel and agricultural donors, dates, and amounts.
I do not manage or control Liberty 2.0. Questions relating to its donors
would need to be directed to those who do.
98.Did you or anyone working for you or on your behalf ever solicit money for
Oklahoma Strong or Liberty 2.0 from fossil fuel and agricultural interests? If so,
when, from whom, and what was the result? Please note any solicitations that
were made in which you mentioned work done in your official capacity as Attorney
General of Oklahoma and what that work was.
I solicited funds for Oklahoma Strong PAC from a broad array of individuals
and corporations representing many different industries. While I do not
recall specific solicitations, given my state's deep ties to farming and oil and

228

 gas, I do not doubt that I at some point fundraised from individuals with
some connection to those industries. Staff members of the Oklahoma
Strong PAC may have records of such solicitations, so requests for details
would have to be made to that entity. I have on occasion solicited funds for
Liberty 2.0, and records of those solicitations may be maintained by the
staff of that organization, so requests for details would have to be made to
that entity. I do not recall the contents of any specific conversations that I
may have had in this context.
99.During the hearing, I asked if you led the Rule of Law Defense Fund. In
response, you stated you had “been an officer of the organization [Rule of Law
Defense Fund] for 2016.” Your EPW questionnaire states you were a board
member or chairman at the Rule of Law Defense Fund between November 2013
and December 2016 while your OGE disclosure says you were a member of the
board or Chair between April 2014 and December 2016. Please clarify when you
were you a board member of the Rule of Law Defense and when were you the
Chair.
I served on the Board of Directors of the Rule of Law Defense Fund from
April 2014 until November 2016. I served as Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the Rule of Law Defense Fund from November 2015 to
November 2016.
100.During the hearing, I asked if you’ve ever solicited funds for RAGA and you
stated you “did not serve in an officer capacity at that entity [RAGA].” On your
EPW disclosure form you stated you were a member of the executive committee
between November 2013 and November 2015. As discussed, OGE doesn’t
require you to disclose your relationship with RAGA or other 527 political
organizations. Your LinkedIn and campaigns pages state you were chair of RAGA
for two terms and RAGA’s website indicates you were the RAGA chair in 2012
and 2013. Please clarify when you’ve been chair of RAGA and when you’ve been
on RAGA’s executive committee. Did you provide any information about your
relationship with RAGA to OGE or EPA when they were reviewing your conflicts of
interest?
I served as Chairman of the Republican Attorney Generals Association from
November 2011 to November 2013. These dates represent "two terms" of
serving as Chairman. Thereafter, I was a member of the Executive
Committee from November 2013 to November 2015. I made all required
disclosures to OGE and EPA ethics counsel, including disclosures about
my relationship to RAGA.
101.RAGA has given other Republican attorneys general call sheets to solicit on
its behalf. Have you or any person working on your behalf ever received call
sheets from RAGA asking you to solicit money or event sponsorships? If so,
when, for what purpose, who was on your list to contact, who if anyone did you or

229

 any member of your staff make contact any of the listed people/entities, and how
much money and which sponsorships was given to RAGA as a result?
I did receive call sheets to solicit funds and/or event sponsorships for
RAGA and I did make contact with the listed people/entities. The exact
dates, the purpose, and who was called are records that are kept by RAGA,
and those requests would need to be made to RAGA. Similarly, I do not
have records of how much money or sponsorships were raised as a result those records are kept by the Republican Attorneys General Association.
102.Besides call sheet efforts, did you or any person working on your behalf ever
solicit money for RAGA? If so, when, from whom, for what purpose, and what was
the result?
No one else working on my behalf has solicited funds for RAGA. In addition
to call sheet efforts, I have asked for funds from individuals/entities in
person for RAGA. Records of exact dates, names of individuals and entities
and how much money was solicited are kept by the staff of RAGA.
103.In 2015, you were on the agenda to speak on a panel entitled, “The
Dangerous Consequences of the Clean Power Plan and other EPA Rules” during
RAGA's National Summer meeting that included several fundraisers. The agenda
for that meeting included private meetings with attorneys general and Murray
Energy, Southern Company, and American Fuel Petrochemical Manufacturers.
According to RAGA’s 2015 and 2016 member benefits descriptions, donors that
contribute $50,000 or more have an “annual opportunity to lead private briefings
with Republican attorneys general during RAGA events” and attend other private
events, including private dinners and retreats, at which Republican attorneys
general are present. Did you or any person working on your behalf attend any of
the private meetings with Murray Energy, Southern Company, and/or the
American Fuel Petrochemical Manufacturers during the 2015 Summer National
RAGA meeting? If yes, please provide a list of meeting attendees, any
minutes/notes taken, and describe any conversations about EPA matters.
I do not recall which meetings I attended at the event you reference.
104.During your time as a member of RAGA, have you or any person working on
your behalf attended any private meetings or functions with co-plaintiffs or amici
for any of the 14 cases you brought against EPA? If yes, please provide a
description of the meeting, the date, a list of meeting/event attendees, any
minutes/notes taken, and describe any conversations about EPA matters.

230

 I do not recall private meetings or functions with a co-plaintiff or amici while
at a RAGA event, and do not know of any instance where a person working
on my behalf attended such a meeting. In instances where a case is being
litigated, counsel for each plaintiff or amici will routinely speak about
matters related to the litigation, as court rules and other procedural matters
often require such communications.
105.RAGA indicates that it raises and spends considerable amounts of money to
support the election campaigns of Republican attorneys general. Please detail all
expenditures from RAGA used to support your position in office, including but not
limited to election campaign spending, contributions to other groups and PACs,
and opposition research. Please detail any actions that you or your staff have
taken to support the fundraising of RAGA for its campaign spending.
RAGA's Oklahoma PAC contributed $5,000 to Scott Pruitt for Attorney
General in April, 2014. Inquiries about what other groups and third parties
RAGA may have contributed to, or research they conducted would have to
be directed to RAGA.
106.RAGA has indicated it has chartered flights for Republican attorneys general.
Have you ever been a passenger on a RAGA-chartered flight? If so, when and
where did you travel to and from? Did RAGA ever cover or reimburse you for
transportation and accommodation? If so, please itemize when, for what, and the
value.
Yes, I recall I was a passenger on a chartered flight to and from Las Vegas,
Nevada in the fall timeframe of 2014. RAGA has covered the cost of flights
and accommodations for me when I have attended RAGA meetings. I do not
keep itemized records of these expenses, flights and accommodations are
booked directly by RAGA staff.
107.While you were on the board of RLDF, did it cover any chartered flights on
which you were a passenger or any of your transportation and accommodation
costs? Please itemize any chartered or commercial flights, accommodations, and
other travel-related expenses that exceed $100, and the value that RLDF
covered.
As far as I am aware, RLDF has never covered the cost of chartered flights
for me or my staff. RLDF has covered costs of transportation and
accommodations when I traveled on behalf of RLDF for meetings, panels,
and other policy-related events. The staff of RLDF booked travel and
accommodations for me directly, and records of the costs and expenses are
kept by Rule of Law Defense Fund staff and are not in my possession.

231

 108.In 2014 and 2015, while you were on the board or Chairman of RLDF, it
contributed over half a million dollars to RAGA. Please list each transaction and
the purpose of the transaction.
Records of transactions between those entities are held by Republican
Attorneys General Association staff and Rule of Law Defense Fund staff and
are not in my possession.
109.As Attorney General, you have jointly signed numerous letters with other
Republican attorneys general, such as your letter of June 15 2016 outlining your
opposition to state investigations of ExxonMobil. What role did the Rule of Law
Defense Fund have in preparing and coordinating release of any letters signed by
you as Attorney General? What role did the Republican Attorneys General
Association have in preparing and coordinating release of any letters signed by
you as Attorney General? What role did any corporate funder of Rule of Law
Defense Fund or Republican Attorneys General Association have in preparing
and coordinating release of any letters signed by you as Attorney General?
I am not aware of what steps may have been taken by the Rule of Law
Defense Fund in preparing or coordinating letters. Day to day operations of
the Rule of Law Defense Fund are delegated to staff of the organization. I
am unaware of any role by RAGA in preparing or coordinating release of
letters. My understanding is that such letters are typically released by the
office who took the lead on preparing the letter. I am unaware of any
corporate funder of either RAGA or RLDF having any role in preparing or
coordinating the release of letters signed by my office.
110.During your time on the board or as Chairman of Rule of Law Defense Fund,
did corporate donors to that organization participate in any meeting of the
executive committee, including board meetings, phone calls or retreats, during
which any EPA matters were discussed? If yes, which corporations participated,
what was the nature of the event, and how did they participate (e.g., in person, by
phone)?
During my time as Chairman of Rule of Law Defense Fund, I cannot ever
recall a time when "corporate donors" participated in a meeting of the
executive committee, including board meetings, phone calls or retreats
during which EPA matters were discussed. However, members and funders
of the Rule of Law Defense Fund were invited to attend large group panel
discussions hosted by RLDF where several EPA matters were discussed.
Any records of attendees at those meetings would be in the possession of
the Rule of Law Defense Fund staff.

232

 111.During your time as attorney general, have you received gifts or in-kind
donations that exceed $100 from any entities besides RAGA and RLDF? If so,
please list when, from whom, and describe if it was related to a specific event or
commitment.
I do not recall receiving gifts with a value of more than $100 from RAGA
and/or RLDF. I have, as stated before, had travel and accommodations
provided for me when I traveled to and from RAGA or RLDF meetings.
112.Will you commit to recusing yourself from matters before EPA involving any
party from whom you have solicited funds during your time as Attorney General of
Oklahoma?
Before participating in any matters involving specific parties where I believe
that my impartiality may be questioned, I will consult with relevant federal
ethics officials and provide them with all relevant facts.
113.Under your predecessors, senior EPA managers’ schedules have been
available to the public. If confirmed, do you agree to make senior managers’
schedules available as well?
If confirmed, I will commit to following applicable laws concerning the
public availability of schedules for senior managers.
114.How many email addresses have you used since becoming Attorney General
of Oklahoma? How many do you still use? Please provide the domains of all email
addresses you’ve used during your time as Attorney General of Oklahoma, along
with the dates used, and note whether they were personal, professional, or both.
I have used two e-mail addresses since becoming Attorney General of
Oklahoma. I use a personal e-mail address for personal e-mail, and an
official e-mail address for official business. The domain of my personal email address is me.com and the domain of my official e-mail address is
oag.ok.gov.
115.Have you ever conducted business using your personal email accounts, nonofficial Oklahoma Attorney General email accounts, text messages, instant
messenger, voicemails, or any other medium? If yes, please provide all businessrelated emails, texts, from those mediums and any others you’ve used to conduct
official business.
I use only my official OAG email address and government issued phone to
conduct official business.
233

 116.In a recent Oklahoma Strong fundraising email, you said:"...As Chairman of
the Rule of Law Defense Fund, the policy arm for Republican Attorneys General, I
asked my fellow AGs to sign onto a letter urging Senate Majority Leader
McConnell and Judiciary Chairman Grassley to stand strong and continue to hold
fast against this [Merrick Garland] nomination." What email address did you use
to get the other attorneys general to sign onto this letter? What if any groups
solicited signatures from other attorneys general? Did you ask Democrats to sign
the letter or just Republicans?
I do not recall using any email address to solicit signatures. I have no
knowledge of what other groups may have solicited signatures from
attorneys general. I do not recall asking any Democrats to support the letter.
117.If confirmed, do you commit to notifying the Committee of all of the email
addresses you plan to use upon confirmation and within seven days of using a
new email address, including any aliases or pseudonyms? Do you commit do
conducting all business using official email addresses and other means and to
refrain from any mediums that are outside the Freedom of Information Act’s
reach?
If confirmed, I commit to notifying the Committee of the e-mail address I use
for official business. I will use my official e-mail address for official EPA
related business.
118.The office of the Oklahoma AG's budget and FTEs have grown significantly
while you've been in office and you indicated you have seven FTEs, accounting
for $679,000 in salaries, focused on “environmentally-related responsibilities.”
What is the breakdown of budget and FTEs dedicated to challenging EPA vs.
criminal and civil environmental cases?
The Office's budget and expenditures can fluctuate greatly year over year
depending on the timing of case settlements and related distributions. For
example in fiscal year 2014, the Attorney General’s Office distributed higher
than normal case settlement funds that inflated the budget over typical
levels. Conversely, that total came down in fiscal years 2015 and 2016.
Thus, fluctuations such as the one assumed by your question do not
accurately reflect the size of the Office’s budget. In my tenure as Attorney
General, the Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General streamlined legal
services for dozens of agencies, returned $29 million to the General
Revenue Fund, distributed mortgage settlement restitution funds to
impacted citizens, strengthened tobacco enforcement, and led the Office in
such a fiscally responsible manner that the Office was able to forego all $6.4

234

 million in state-appropriated operating funds for fiscal year 2017--that in
addition to the Office having its annual appropriation cut in every prior year.
The Office of Attorney General was the only state agency to voluntarily do
this. During my tenure, the Office assumed the statutory duties of the
Human Rights Commission through our Office of Civil Rights Enforcement,
strengthened tobacco settlement enforcement efforts, and launched the
Solicitor General’s Unit. The Office also increased by one third the number
of agencies, commissions, or boards which it represents. This has led to a
precipitous decline in state agency usage of costly private counsel. It is
these and other efforts that have permitted the Office to contribute
approximately $29 million to the General Revenue Fund over the last six
years. With regard to FTEs related "to challenging EPA vs. criminal and civil
environmental cases," the Office currently has four FTEs whose
responsibilities would include (among many other things) challenges to
EPA rulemakings or other actions.
119.As submitted for the record, here are some statistics from Drew Edmonson’s
Environmental Unit (1997 to 2010): Criminal matters
142 criminal investigations; 56 federal or state prosecutions; 110 felony counts
convictions of individuals; 21 misdemeanor count convictions of individuals; 10
felony counts convictions of corporations; 3 misdemeanor count convictions of
corporations; 28 years of jail time; $8M in fines. Is it still your position that the
Environmental Protection Unit was only handling one case when you took office?
I am not familiar with the cases being handled prior to my taking office. As I
have stated, when I took Office, the primary focus of the "environmental
protection unit" was a single lawsuit relating to poultry farms.
120.We reviewed the Oklahoma Attorney General’s website between when you
took office and the present and found no press releases on criminal or civil
environmental enforcement matters. For this review, we did not include lawsuits
by Oklahoma against EPA. Why were there no environmental enforcement
matters listed on your website as of January 17, 2017?
I have not reviewed the website, so I am not familiar with what matters are
or are not listed.
121.What specific reductions in air, water, or solid waste pollution have resulted
from your environmental enforcement actions as Attorney General?
Environmental regulation in Oklahoma is the responsibility of Oklahoma's
environmental regulators at agencies like the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board. The
235

 Office of Attorney General sometimes provides legal services to those
agencies with regard to environmental issues, and in that capacity the
Office has, for example, negotiated a consent decree requiring a large
concentrated animal feeding operation to clean up its operations to prevent
water pollution, and negotiated an agreement whereby Arkansas agreed to a
stringent phosphorous standard in the Illinois River.
122.How many criminal investigations, federal prosecutions, state prosecutions,
felony count convictions of individuals, misdemeanor count convictions of
individuals, felony count convictions of corporations, misdemeanor count
convictions of corporations, years of jail time, and cumulative fines resulted from
environmental cases you initiated? Please list and describe any civil suits and
actions you initiated.
To list and describe every civil suit and action initiated by the Office of
Attorney General would be all but impossible. Each attorney is responsible
for maintaining their own case files, and the Office employs many attorneys
across many different units who litigate civil matters of all kinds. In order for
you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous request of that
nature requesting information on all matters, I would direct you to make a
request of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office under the Oklahoma
Open Records Act, and to the extent it is even possible to compile such a
list, the Office would make efforts to do so.
123.The Center for Media and Democracy ORA request is dated on or about
January 5, 2015. During the hearing, you said, “I actually have a general counsel
and an administrator in my office that are dedicated to performing or providing
responses to open records requests.” In response to questions about the January
5, 2015 request, your general counsel apologized for the delayed response and
explained she was busy with other duties. What percentage of time do each of the
two staff you mentioned dedicate to responding to Open Records Act requests?
Have you communicated with your office’s general counsel or any other attorney
handling ORA requests to discuss the timing of your office’s response to any
specific request? If so, please identify which requests you discussed, the dates of
those discussions, and the substance of your discussions.
The Office of Attorney General employs a paralegal who intakes requests,
opens files, and searches for documents responsive to each Open Records
Act request. Once the search is complete, the office's general counsel must
review each document to ensure it does not contain information required to
be kept confidential under state and federal laws. Along with overseeing the
Open Records Act process, the office's general counsel is responsible for
overseeing many other programs and statutory duties with which the Office
is tasked. I am unaware of what percentage of time is spent solely on Open
Records Act requests. I do not recall any conversations with individuals in
my office regarding the timing of Open Records Act responses.
236

 124. In a letter regarding this request, your general counsel stated your office
processes “these requests in the order in which they are received.” How long has
that been the policy of your office? Have you fulfilled any ORA requests submitted
since at least January 5, 2015?
To my knowledge, that is how the office has historically processed such
requests. I am not aware of which requests submitted since January 5, 2015
have or have not been responded to.
125.According to a recent E&E article, your office has 52 outstanding open
records requests. Please provide a list of all pending FOIA, Open Records Act or
other similar information requests under Oklahoma state law, by whom, and when
each was a filed.
I am not familiar with the pending requests. Such a requests should be
directed to the Office of Attorney General's general counsel, who can
provide such a list.
126.The public and this Committee, in fulfilling our constitutional advice and
consent duties, have a right to see information pursuant to the Open Records Act.
Please produce all of the following material that has been requested under the
Open Records Act prior to November 8, 2016: related to RAGA, RLDF, Liberty
2.0, Oklahoma Strong, and any other 527s, 501(c)(3), and 501(c)(4)s, including
the State Policy Network and ALEC; correspondence with the fossil fuel and
agriculture industries and any other industries regulated by EPA; any other
material related to energy, environment, agriculture, and EPA.
If Open Records Act requests for such information have been made, as your
question suggests, those requests will be answered in the normal course.
127.Please provide a list of all Open Records Act requests your office has
received during your tenure, from whom and when, the number of days it took to
produce the requested documents or decline the request, the outcome of those
requests including whether any decisions have been or currently are being
challenged in court, and share the following material that has been disclosed as a
result of those requests with the Committee: related to RAGA, RLDF, Liberty 2.0,
Oklahoma Strong, and any other 527s, 501(c)(3), and 501(c)(4)s, including State
Policy Network and ALEC; correspondence with the fossil fuel and agriculture
industries and any other industries regulated by EPA; any other material related to
energy, environment, agriculture, and EPA.

237

 In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous
request of that nature, I would direct you to make a request of the Oklahoma
Attorney General's Office under the Oklahoma Open Records Act.
128.What was the average length of time it took your office to fulfill open record
act requests to your office between January 2011 and December 6, 2014? What
was the average length of time it took your office to fulfill open record act requests
to your office from December 7, 2014 to the present? What, if any, steps has your
office taken to improve the timeliness of your open records act responses?
I am not aware of what the average length of time my office took to fulfill
open record act requests is. I have directed my staff to respond to all open
records act requests in a timely and efficient manner.
129.Under what circumstances would it be appropriate for EPA to fail to respond
to a FOIA request for 700 days?
I am not in a position to render an opinion a hypothetical given that different
open record requests raise issues specific to the particular requests at
issue. However, I appreciate the importance of openness and transparency,
and if confirmed I will work to ensure EPA complies with all legal
requirements concerning the implementation of the Freedom of Information
Act and other statutes EPA is responsible for administering.
130.Why did you fail to disclose records on your office’s expenditures on outside
attorneys, as is required under Oklahoma state law, until contacted by a reporter?
Why did you not hold your own office’s spending practices to the same standard
expected of other Oklahoma state offices?
The Office of Attorney General complies with its legal obligations relating to
outside counsel, and discloses any outside counsel contracts when asked.
131.Is it correct that your office has spent over $1 million in outside lawyer
expenses during your tenure? Please explain the unreported increase in
expenses.
The bulk of the outside counsel expenses incurred by the Office during my
tenure relate to a single dispute over water rights in southeastern
Oklahoma. The Legislature specially appropriated funds to my office for the
specific purpose of retaining outside counsel with expertise relevant to that
tribal water law issue.

238

 132.Oklahoma state law requires that state agencies select attorneys from a preapproved list. Several of the outside attorneys that your office has hired are not
included on the list of approved attorneys. Why didn’t you comply with this
requirement?
Because the Office of Attorney General maintains the referenced list, and is
authorized to allow representation from attorneys not on the list, the Office
of Attorney General plainly has the discretion to allow representation from
attorneys not on the list.
133.You have not released records on your contracts with outside attorneys, as
required under Oklahoma state law. Please provide all contracts, including any
related to pro-bono work. Have any private interests been funding outside
attorneys representing your office in lawsuits against the federal government? If
so, who, why, and in what amounts? For any pro-bono work, is that an in-kind
donation that should be recorded and accounted for in your office’s accounting?
Has your office done so? Please provide a list of these in-kind donations, from
whom, when the work was done, and the value.
A requests for such contracts can made to the Office of Attorney General
pursuant to Oklahoma's Open Records Act. When my office retains outside
counsel to assist on a matter, it either compensates those attorneys itself,
or the outside counsel provides the services pro bono. I am not aware of
any outside funding of pro bono counsel, and would not retain any pro bono
counsel if they were being so funded. I am not aware of any requirement
that pro bono legal services be considered an in kind donation to the Office
of Attorney General.

134.You received campaign contributions from at least one of the attorneys that
provided outside representation for Oklahoma—David Rivkin, of D.C. law firm
BakerHostetler. Is there a prohibition on receiving campaign contributions from
those in a contractual relationship with your office? Was your contribution from Mr.
Rivkin in compliance with such requirements?
I am not aware of any such requirements. In any event, Mr. Rivkin received
no compensation from the Office for the legal services he provided.
135.Are you aware of any payments made to Mr. Rivkin from other parties in
return for his representation of your state?
I am unaware of any payments made to Mr. Rivkin from any other parties in
return for his representation.

239

 136.Did you contact Mr. Rivkin about representing the State of Oklahoma, did he
contact you, or did a third-party made the connection? Please explain.
I cannot recall the exact circumstances leading to Mr. Rivkin's
representation, or who initiated the contact. Mr. Rivkin has represented over
half of our Nation’s states on various matters, and is a well-recognized
expert on constitutional questions, particularly those relating to States and
their federalism interests.

137.According to your questionnaire, you've given dozens of environment-related
speeches in Oklahoma and around the country, many to industry groups. Have
you ever given one to a public health group, environmental NGO, or scientific
society? You’ve received various awards, several from industry groups. Have you
ever received an award from a public health or environmental group for protecting
public health? How about environmental quality? Have you ever received an
award from a scientific society?
I have given dozens of speeches on a wide variety of topics to many
different groups and industries. I do not recall a specific public health
group, NGO or scientific society I have spoken to. I do not recall receiving
awards from a public health or environmental group or a scientific society.
138.Please provide any correspondence or details about other communication
between you or anyone working on your behalf concerning the establishment or
activities of America Rising, America Rising Squared, and Protecting America
Now, and any other organizations that are funding efforts to get you confirmed as
EPA Administrator.
I am not aware of any such correspondence.
139.You wrote an op-ed attacking efforts to investigate whether Exxon
deliberately misled investors and the public despite internal research confirming
that climate change is real. Please describe any conversations you’ve had with
political donors to you or your affiliated political action committees, RAGA, Rule of
Law Defense Fund, or co-plaintiffs or amici in your cases against EPA about
ExxonMobil’s potential liability under federal or state law regarding climate change
(e.g., federal RICO, New York state’s Martin Act, etc.), including the date and
substance of those conversations.
I do not recall any such conversations.

240

 140.During your time as the Attorney General of Oklahoma, have you or anyone
in your immediate family owned any stocks of companies that were co-plaintiffs or
amici in any of your 14 cases against the EPA, including ExxonMobil, Devon
Energy, Murray Energy, Southern Company, and Continental Resources. If yes,
please list the stock, dates held, and amount.
To my knowledge, no, and a list of my investments has been provided as
part of my financial disclosures.
141.In implementing the Lautenberg Act, EPA, consistent with congressional
intent, issued a notice making it clear that substantiation of all non-exempt
confidential business information (CBI) claims is required upfront. Do you commit
to ensuring the EPA follows and upholds that requirement?
As I have previously stated I believe the Lautenberg Act struck an
appropriate balance between protecting confidential business information
and informing the public and I intend to apply the law as drafted by
congress.
142.In a speech at Hillsdale College on June 30, 2016, you referred to a threehour private, basement meeting with Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas,
Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, and other unidentified people. Referring to
Justice Scalia, you said: Leonard [Leo] blessed me on a number of occasions to
spend some quality time, personal time, with the previous justice. In fact, I
remember one year about three years ago, I was here for a Federalist Society
event, their annual meeting that occurs in November. Leonard said ‘Scott, stay
over, I’d like for you to go dinner on Friday night’… we went to a basement in
Washington DC, there were about ten of us in attendance. Two of those folks in
attendance were Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. And we spent three hours
talking about the constitution and things that were involved in as attorneys
general. It was a fabulous time.
What was the date of this basement meeting? Please provide a complete list of
the participants. Please list all cases pending before the Supreme Court at the
time of this meeting in which the State of Oklahoma was a party and/or on which
you or an attorney in your office was counsel of record. During the basement
meeting, was there any discussion or mention of EPA, the environment, public
health, environmental or public health regulations, environmental laws including
but limited to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, NEPA, mercury, cross-state
air pollution, Renewable Fuels Standards, ozone standards, endangerment from
GHGs, regional haze, or climate change. If so, please identify the specific topics
that were discussed or mentioned. Have you ever had any other private meetings
with any other state or federal judges or justices while you had cases pending
before their courts? Which cases? Please describe any such meeting, including
the dates, locations, attendees, and topics discussed.

241

 I do not recall the date of the dinner to which you refer, but I believe it was
in November 2013. It was a private dinner. I am not aware of any matters that
my office had pending before the Supreme Court at the time. As far I recall,
none of the topics you mentioned was discussed, nor was any specific
matter of any sort discussed. I am not aware of any other meetings of the
sort to which you refer. In my capacity as attorney general, I am often at
events with judges or justices of various sorts, but no discussion of
pending matters would ever occur in any social interactions we might have.
143.The lifetime emissions of any energy source should be considered in the
context of necessary extraction techniques as well as transportation of the fuel,
among other issues. For example, transporting crude via pipeline clearly creates
fewer emissions than transporting it via other sources in terms of fossil fuel
energy. Without knowing the specifics of all of these factors in a given instance, it
is difficult to identify which sources may result in greater emissions.
The role of the United States in the Paris Agreement is a State Department
matter. If confirmed, I will work to advance the mission of the EPA, which is
to protect human health and the environment, consistent with the State
Department's strategy for international engagement on climate change.
144. Do you support the amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down
HFCs?
Should the State Department decide to advance the Kigali Amendment to
the Montreal Protocol and if I am confirmed as Administrator, I will work
with all involved agencies and impacted stakeholders to ensure that EPA's
actions related to hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are coordinated accordingly.

242