but congressman pompeo and lankford talked about oil and how oil production is up. his energy policy. i want to get your take on that. you might have a different opinion than the president, i would guess. fire off here. >> it is stunning to watch a president who is bound and determined, honest about his desire to stop coal-powered power plants. talk about how oil production is up on his watch. every single policy statement that he makes puts a burden on folks who are trying to produce these energies. he talks about taking away ordinary tax deductions from him that every other industry player gets, a health care bill that makes it expensive for them to operate their companies. then he talks about a transition. he didn't say how long he wanted natural gas to be a transition for. i suspect his base will be a transition for about 20 minutes. and we know that fossil fuels are going to be around for decades to come, and yet this president will wave his magic wand and pretend it's not so. >> what's fascinating to me, the president says i'm going to streamline bureaucracies

now, even director mccarthy from the epa in answering questions from congressman pompeo before our committee, said reaching all of the 26 u.s. goals is not going to have an impact globally. and, david, what we have to look at is the fact that you don't make good laws, sustainable laws when you're making them on hypotheses or theories or unproven sciences. >> bill nye? >> well, once again, the congresswoman is trying to introduce doubt, and doubt in the whole idea of climate change. so what i would encourage everybody to do is back up and let's agree on the facts. would you say that the antarctic has less ice than it used to? when you asserted, congresswoman, that a change from 320 to 400 parts per million is insignificant? my goodness, that's 30%. i mean, that's an enormous change, and it's changing the world. that's just over the last few decades. you go back to 1750 with the invention of the steam engine, i mean, everybody's been over this a lot, it's gone from 250 to 400. there is no debate in the scientific community. and i can encourage the congresswoman to look at the facts. you are a

pompeo, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm not quite thinking we're in a place where we're ready to move down this path. i'm glad we're having this hearing but when "the new york times" gets wound up we in congress react in ways i think our inappropriate to the challenge. i want to talk about that for a second. ms. ramirez, typically we regulate when the there is a market failure. the federal government would regulate because we don't think private action ks respond to a particular concern or threat in an appropriate way. i can understand a potential justification for notification because sometimes someone might not know their material had been stolen. why is it the case that consumers can't figure out that if they're not happy with target or neiman marcus or whomever it is allowed their data to be stolen they wouldn't migrate somewhere else, why is it that consumers won't analyze the risk of their data being stolen and respond appropriately without the federal government trying to step in and regulate? >> i don't think th