uncertainty with respect to the markets and growing our economy. fiscal policy, tax policy, very, very important. i think one of the factors that's often missed is regulatory uncertainty. those in the finance sector, the health care sector, the energy sector, not knowing what's expected of them or as rules are passed, they're changed midstream after infrastructure investment is taking place. one of the things we need to focus upon at the epa is maintaining a commitment to process, making sure that we hear comments from industry, to hear how rules are going to impact them, citizens, health concerns, environmental concerns. then adopt rules and make sure that they're enforced appropriately, fairly, equitably across the board. regulatory certainty is something we need to focus upon at the epa. that's what we're trying to reinstill in the agency presently. >> administrator pruitt, try to incapsulate my question here. in recent years, critics would say the epa has been too focused on co2...

that's not an america first type of approach to these issues. >> okay. let me ask you one other thing, just to get to the nitty-gritty, do you believe that it's been proven that co2 is the primary control knob for climate? do you believe that? >> no. i think that measuring with precision, human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. so, no, i would not agree it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. >> okay. all right. >> but we don't know that yet.

and it's controversial that co2 is a dangerous pollutant. will you try to roll that back, or will you try to -- do you think that needs to be addressed about whether you can classify co2 as a pollutant? >> you know, it's interesting about the situation with co2, joe. we've had a supreme court decision in 2007 and then the endangerment finding you're making reference to in 2009. nowhere in the continuum, nowhere on the equation has congress spoken. the legislative branch has not addressed this issue at all. it's a very fundamental question to say, are the tools in the tool box available to the epa to address this issue of co2 as the court had recognized in 2007. the decision in 2007 was not that the epa had to regulate. the decision in 2007 was they needed to make a decision. so i think all those things need to be addressed as we go forward but not least of which is the response bit legislative branch with respect to this issue. i don't want to miss, joe -- last week the president did

with those standards, but two, those in detroit, those that are manufacturing autos this in country expressed to the epa that they wanted to evaluate the impact of the previous standards. that was largely disregarded. that is a breach of the process. that's something that as we do our business at the epa, we want to have a collaborative process, make sure that the rule making process, issuing notice, taking comment, responding to that comment, and issuing rules in a way that takes everything into consideration needs to be respected. as you know, joe, that rule or that review of the standards was not supposed to be completed until november of 2018. so they accelerated that by almost 18 months. that says something. that says there was an outcome predetermined to achieve certain things. >> the next question -- and the last one was andrew. what's your next about private e-mail servers or something? >> no, i'm not asking about i'm private e-mail servers. >> go ahead. >> i think there's a...