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 something very, very important, talking about regulatory certainty. he rolled back the waters in the united states rule that was literally a power grab by the epa recently to assert itself in jurisdiction to make decisions locally in land use decisions with private property owners, cities, and towns across the country. puddles and dry creek beds were being regulated by the epa and put a paralysis on economic development. the president did a great thing last week by sending that executive order out. within eight minutes, we started that rule making process to roll it back. i anticipate the same thing will happen with the clean power plan. i anticipate the same thing will happen with the methane rule as well. >> administr

the epa is good example of what you're talking about here. we talk about the problem of uncertainty which is largely related to the fact that congress delegate too much power to the administrative agencies in a lot of people's views. the epa is often held up as example of that. clean air act, clean water act. they go all sorts of crazy directions with it. take things further than they probably should. but at the same time do we really think congress has the competency to deal with these things on granular nuts and bolts kind of issue? or are we going to have to continue what amounts to series of enabling acts where congress said we like have cleaner air and you guys need to come up with rules to do that? how do we deal with the expertise which the epa brings allegedly to the table and the problem with -- >> this is huge issue kevin raised. i'm in the camp saying congress needs to be more prescriptive. i'm not one of those individuals who believe as our founding fathers put together this very precious framework we know, where we have horizonta

you know, out the epa is received better than the irs. in the years ahead, and we can -- we can be that had kind of partner with the state by sending message to them about compliance, it's about assistance, it's not about punishment. and let's get about the business of achieving good outcools together. >> you want to be more popular than the irs. [laughter] >> well, so -- >> called that the bigotry of low expectation. [laughter] >> but you know did do a little and get a lot done. you know, no kidding. >> so will be colon cancer by terms of popularity. >> making good progress, kevin. >> epa is a good example of what you're talking about here. so we talk about the quality of incertainty which is largely related to the fact that congress delegates too much power to the administrative agencies in a lot of peoples 'view and clean air water act and take things further than they probably should. but at the same time do we really think that congress has competency to deal with these things on a granulely nuts and bolts kind of issue or -- are we

the epa is held up as the example of that. clean air act, clean water act and they go all kinds of crazy directions with it they take things further than they probably should. but at the same time do we really think that congress has the competency to deal with these things on a granular nuts and bolts kind of issue. or are we going to have to continue with what amounts to a series of enabling acts where congress says we'd kind of like to have cleaner air and you guys need to come up with rules to do that? how do we manage the problem of expertise which is what the epa allegedly brings to the table with the problem of democratic accountability which is why we want a larger role for the legislative branch. >> this is a huge issue that kevin has raised and i'm in the camp of saying that congress needs to be more prescriptive. i'm not one of those individuals that believe that our founding fathers as they put together this very, very precious framework we know where we have horizontal checks and balances between the branches, ver

the epa so welcome. [applause] we are gathered in the map room at the epa. maps are to simply help you navigate. maps are to help you work toward a destination journey towards a destination but as we gather today with the president he has set a new journey and a new pathway forward on how we are going to do business with respect to energy and environment. the president by his signature today is rejecting the narrative that this country cannot be both pro energy and pro environment. we have done that throughout our history. we can actually achieve good jobs good growth and pro energy policies at the same time we protect our environment and the president is sending that message by his signature today. number two he is also setting a pathway forward on a journey today that we are no longer going to have regulatory assaults on any given sector of our economy. that's going to end by the signing of this executive order. were not going to allow regulations at the epa to pick winners and losers and that's important as we chart the pathway for it. but the third thing

several years is the of displacement that the epa has used and to go back to the inception of the epa when the statutes were passed there was a very important prescriptive model was federalism to be enforcers and partners with the federal government that has been pushed to decide and the states have started to develop a distrust of their partner here in washington d.c.. i am so faithful to be working with and for president trump will be restoring that trust to leave in the partnership with respect to the environmental issues to be pro-growth and pro environment. >> if they say that you cannot have your cake and eat it too does not like take. and i reject that. with the puddles around town >> and not any more. >> on february 28 on the day of his address to congress that the previous administration ruled that the dry creek beds and puddles were going to be treated as waters of the united states. just to go back to the history of the clean water act. and clearly with the jurisdiction of the epa to say we will regulate the waters to have a connection to traditional navigable streams and w

now, remarks from epa administrator scott pruitt. he delivered the keynote address at the national league of cities conference in washington -- washington, d.c. he was introduced by karen freeman wilson. this is just over 10 minutes. >> the poll is, in one word , describe how you feel about being an elected official. now, you've got to get your phones out. you have got to type it in. we're going to give you some chance. if you are like me yesterday, i didn't have a chance to answer because i wasn't doing it quick enough . i see honored, i see excited. --looks like honor is humbled. wow. humbled is trying to catch up. i think humbled, honored, sort of like no and -- neck and neck. honored and humbled is really important because we should be proud of the work that we do. it's also important for us to keep in mind why we got involved in local government in the first place. what motivated you to serve? yesterday, we asked a few of you that very question and here's what you had to say. ♪ >> iran for office -- i ran for wasce for many reas

number one, as she said, it slashes the epa staff and the epa budget by 20% to 25%.at is unsustainable at a time when we need epa to be the backstop. second, as you pointed out in your preliminary remarks, this budget cuts eliminates 38 very important bipartisan successful programs ranging from brownfield development to reducing diesel emissions from trucks and construction equipment. it eliminates almost entirely money that goes to the great lakes. it eliminates the radon program. and finally, wenonah was getting to this come at a time when president trump and administrator puritt are saying, let's get regulation out of washington, d.c., away from epa, and give it to the states, and in the same breath, they are cutting the federal grants to the states to do this work by 30% to 40%. that is unacceptable. the bottom line, if these cuts go through, we can almost guarantee with certainty that there will be more premature deaths and more sicknesses throughout the country. the public should be outraged at that. amy: wenonah hauter, this battle in the white house over whet

this is a 31% cut in the epa. that's what's proposed.t's the biggest cut of the agencies, 2.6 billion dollars, what do you think? >> welcome, you can't improve the economy of a place like flint, michigan, if you don't have clean water to drink, so you have situations in these budgets at epa, you have great lakes has pollution cleanup programs that are in there. i mean, who is going to take care of that? i mean, if this is going to be cut, that's a bad thing. david: so, steve, what about that? if you have killing water and air, you can't have any economy at all? >> well, the fact of the matter is, john is right, first you need the resources to do it, david. but also the epa wastes a lot of money on fuel standards, on this clean power act, which would put the utilities out of business, gratuitously and in terms of cleaning up water, the funds are there to do it, specific programs, but the epa has gone way, way beyond that. you could cut that agency in half and we'd have a cleaner environment. david: e-mack it's not happened, 31% is a big c

bush's first epa administrator from 2000 to 2003.me to both of you and first to you, governor, are you in any way skeptical of the new epa add strait administrator, that he'll do the right thing? >> well, i'm fairly skeptical because it's not going to be up to him as jina well knows. as an administrator, you carry out the policies of the president. it's a little hard to figure out this president, though, he'll say one thing in one minute then find some member of his cabinet is doing something else which you have to believe is coming from him. so the signals are very mixed. i hope fervently that the kind of message that the add straiter gave t gave the other day to people who work at the agency, the career staff, where it was a pretty balanced approach, that's the tone we're going to see, more respect for the mission aagency it does, about protecting human health and the environment. we don't want to lose that in an effort to ensure that regulation in place are the ones the administration wants, which it feels comfortable and any over

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 and maybe things like hazardous waste sites,

please welcome the honorable scott pruitt, administrator of the epa. [applause] >> good afternoon. it's a pleasure to be here with you today and i saw the mayor last week at the conference mayors event in dc as well. so it's good to be with you. i want to say first and foremost, i appreciate your leadership. as mayors of your respective cities and towns across the country, you deal with very difficult issues from law enforcement to zoning, trying to find answers for your citizens at the local level. i had that same duty and responsibility as attorney general and today, we deal with similar issues at the national level with respect to environment and growth and jobs. so i want to commend you for the leadership you show locally and appreciate your time here today. i look forward to working with you. it's been said that friendship is part of partnership and as i think about the role of administrator of the epa and how we should work with cities and towns across this country and mayors with respect to environmental policy, it is key that we have a close partnership. that i listen and t

well, welcome to the epa. perhaps some of you, this is your first visit to the epa. it's good to see some coal miners here at the epa. welcome to you here. [ applause ] and we're gathered in the map room here at the epa. and maps are intended to help you navigate. maps are intended to help you work toward a destination, journey toward a destination. and as we gather today, with the president -- as the president is signing an exec order, he's setting a new path way forward with respect to energy and environment. number one, the president by his signature today is rejecting the nair tiff that this country cannot be both proenergy and proenvironment. we have done that throughout our history. we can actually achieve good jobs, good growth and pro-energy policies at the same time of protecting our environment and the president is sending that message by his signature today on this executive order. he's also setting a path way forward, a journey to say we're no longer going to have regulatory assault. that's going to end by the signing of this executive order. we here not

it's not the epa. >> no, it is the epa.- part of their mandate from their website says they regulate, the construction, operation, permitting, closure of injection wells used to place these fluids under ground for storage or proposal. if any money gets cut from that, are you comfortable with that? >> first of all, that's not going to cut the activity they would be doing in terms of earthquakes, in terms of something, groundwater that might be causing something. the balls are still in the air on that. they are working on that, have good people working on it. that has nothing to do with the cuts of the individuals that are out there spending all their time -- >> how do you know their jobs won't be cut, senator? >> well, because i know scott pruitt. i know a lot of the people, as was pretty well documented yesterday in one of the newspapers. i do know they're going to turn it back into an agency that is going to be concerned about the environment, going to be concerned about clean water, clean air. i have every confidence. let

kristene todd whitman, former epa administrate. nice to see you through a camera lens.reciate you coming on. >>> up next, why i think some of our friends at the nation's biggest colleges need a geography lesson. >>> then next tuesday, austin, who doesn't want to be in austin? some days of the week, right? we're going to south by southwest because nobody does that anymore. i'll be hosting a discussion on whether big data is destroying the u.s. political system. if you're in austin, we'd love to see you there. stop by, we'll be right back. ♪ why do so many businesses rely on the u.s. postal service? because when they ship with us, their business becomes our business. ♪ that's why we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ here, there, everywhere. united states postal service priority : you youthat's why you drink ensure. sidelined. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you. so we know how to cover almost alanything.ything, even a "tru

there's a supreme court decision massachusetts versus epa that is the law of the land. there is not that much room to maneuver but we will lose two things. one, we will lose time while the lawyers and lawsuits go forward and that is not a commodity without risk. the second thing that we will lose is we will lose our reputation. go to any state university in this country, go to all of the other countries and look to america around the world. everybody understands perfectly well what's going on. this executive order only demeans donald trump himself, his administration and ultimately our country. the fossil fuel industry needs to be held to account here. they are pulling the strings that are causing this to take place. they are hiding their hand behind lobby groups but the american people should know at this moment of national embarrassment is brought to you by the fossil fuel industry and hand off to jeff merkley. >> thank you. i'm honored to be here with this group of five senators who are climate champions fighting for clean water and for clean air and specifically to

we have programs at the epa, $4 billion of the budget is focused on grants. i want you to know i am committed to working with congress and on behalf of the white house to ensure that the water in the structure and grants are used to help at the local level to ensure safe drinking water for your citizen. [applause] it's an area that i think we should celebrate progress but also recognize that there is work to be done. when you look at the programs, we have achieved i think tremendous success. we had a 63% reduction in those criteria pollutants that still today, the standards that currently exist were presently around 40% of the country that didn't obtain at about 122 million. we need to do better. and the focus of the agencies should be to work with you locally on assistance on how to approve of attainment and not punish you. i think all too often, federal agencies generally take the first step of punishment as opposed to cooperation and partnership and trying to provide assistance to approve of attainment. your citizens care about the air they breathe and wat

the epa is going to review the clean power plants.e's gonna focus on a better, more prosperous economy. he's going to rescind moratorium on coal, identify regulations that may prohibit domestic energy production. all this in an effort his administration says to create jobs in the oil and gas sector. he's gonna create jobs in the sectors, coal sector across the country. i'll remind you what scott pruitt, head of the epa, said earlier. said the coal sector has been under assault and that is not going to happen any more. so donald trump, he has promised to roll back those regulations. you just heard him sort of jokingly say, it's not just here. he's going to be rolling back those regulations in all sectors that he believes have stifled or slowed down business and job growth in this country. the president donald trump, you're seeing it right there, coal miners behind him, signing a new executive order. he's long promised to do this. you are witnessing him with that pen doing so right now. also, bunch of talk about the keystone pipeline. t

amy: that was scott pruitt the head of the epa's begin with cnbc host joe kernen.itt's comment defies scientific consensus about the laws of physics. the epa's own website even , in the time of trump features , a fact sheet declaring -- "greenhouse gases act like a blanket around the earth, trapping energy in the atmosphere and causing it to warm." on friday, one day after pruitt made the comment, the national oceanic and atmospheric administration revealed that the level of c carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had risen at a record pace for a second year in row. meanwhile president trump is , proposing to cut 25% from the epa's budget and eliliminate 300 jobs. trump's plan calls for the complete elimination of epa programs on climate change, toxic waste cleanup, environmenental justice, and funding for native alaskan villages. it would slash funding to states fofor clean air and water progrs by 30%. well, , we turn now to a longtie epa staffer who o resigned last week to protest the agency's new direction. mustafa ali is the former head of the epa's environmental ju

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

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 larger question. you're talking about the

bottom line, it's critical that epa remains strong. sen. manchin: i support epa. i've want them to do their job and allow the are a core best the army corps of engineers to o its job. >> i would say the rhetoric going around about obama's war on coal, that that fosters -- sen. manchin: i know one thing, it took it out of the army corps and put it in the white house. i'm going to keep the epa, but i'm going to make sure they do their job. let's go. > senator manchin, thank you for being here this evening. i'm from fairmont, west virginia , one of your hometown folks. my question regards your ealth care and that of the 534 other members of congress. >> you all are covered. you might know where i am going. sen. manchin: i'm fine, because i just found out about what my health care is. >> my question is, the congressional health care plan is something of a gold standard in the united states. sen. manchin: no, no, no. >> the point is, many of your constituents here believe that part of the problem is that many of the republican legislators do not really have any skin in

new epa administrator scott pruitt issued a statement. we need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of american farms that rely on the pesticide while still protecting health and the environment. those in agriculture like michael kelly agree. >> would you worry about using it? >> no, i didn't. >> it has been around since 1965 and i found it to be not only very effective, but very safe. >> reporter: but critics say effective substitute pesticides are readily available. >> it would not be that difficult to take this off the plate of parents. and it is a bit confounding to me why we're not as a government doing that. >> reporter: now, agro sciences which makes the pesticide applauded the move saying it remains confident the authorized use of it offers wide margins of protection for human health and

great day at the epa.resident's attendance here, the executive order that kicked the process off, and as you indicated, bill, we started the rule making process already. right now, the focus is to withdrawal the clean power plan. there's a spring court stay issued against that particular plan. so we've begun the process to withdraw that, and we'll then make sure that whatever's done in the future is done within the framework of the clean air act respecting all forms of energy. >> one question at the heart of this is about the cost and benefit of rules like this when they are implemented, so, you know, going back to the idea of cutting back on these emissions, do you take issue with that move? do you take issue with the fact they unilaterally say we want them down 30% and whatever the cost may be? >> look, i mean, you did a very good point as rules were adopted, whether at the epa or any agency, that passes rules on to the marketplace, there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis, and historically what happene

the epa shows it poses a health risk to children and farm workers. john blackstone has the controversy from fresno. >> reporter: farming is a big industry across california and across the nation. but it faces an army of small enemies and many who work in farming use the pesticide color pure foss as ammunition. >> it's very important for controlling the small pests that can wreak havoc on the crops. >> reporter: for 50 years it's been used on dozens of crops including corn, strawberries and citrus but the scientists under the obama administration found that the chemical could interfere with children's brain development. >> reduced iq, lower working memory scores, increased adhd, those are the kinds of things. they were -- they were small effects. but they were meaningful. >> reporter: in 2015, the agency proposed banning farmers from using the pesticide. but now, the new leadership of the epa says reliable data overwhelmingly in both quantity and quality contradicts the reliance on earlier studies. the epa says farmers can continue to use the pesticid

epa can do it better.s be the one to decide those issues not the federal government. >> i agree with the things said. what is the most area we felt the most encroachment, i have been governor for a year, a lawsuit i have been able to engage in, who goes into our public bathrooms, number one, number two, pushing back dictating which doctors be required to perform sex change operation under fear of losing license, pushing back on the overtime rules. you mentioned epa, the streams rule, the me than rules. the epa agency has become a regul regulatory frankenstein. nobody wants to drink dirt water or breathe dirty air. the fact of the matter is whether it's environment, education, commerce, whatever the case on the energy front is well, push it back to the state level control that's why federalism was intended to be in the first place. [ applause ] >> let's follow that line of thought. how do we make that happen? how do we inaffect turn back the power? >> literally this is what a government for and by the peopl

you mentioned of epa. the methane rules. this is a handful the we have been involved in an over the last year. the epa tralee is a regulatory frankenstein. if you go back to read the book it was created with good intention and it turned on its creator. nobody was to drink dirty water or a brief dirty air. but those that would not manage this are to be incentivized. we all want this but whether or not it is environmental, education, co mmerce, energy, push it back to the state level control. that is where federalism was intended. [applause] >> how do we return the power to the states and turn back the clock? >> let me say something on that. this is what a government of and for and by the people does. this is where i am begging those of the you that watching or assemble a year for this conference the reality is of and by and for the people all the works of the people are engaged if you truly maypole calls and create dialogue otherwise it does not work in the greatest demise of any culture or civilization of any form of governm

who sued the epa 14 times head.e has become its >> and for chile, not only -- if it was just cutting epa budget in general, that would be bad enough, but it is targeted slashing of environment will justice programs that are meant to protect communities like moscow, louisiana, which is in its petrochemical corridor which is a cancer cluster, which has already existing impacts for their community, communities like uniontown, alabama, which -- communities across the nation disproportionately communities of color and indigenous community's and loan can communities, and appalachia, suffering under impacts of mountaintop removal and so forth and so on. the environmental protection agency, for its name, it is there to ensure we have the monitoring and the enforcement of safeguards for our health and well-being. i shudder to think what the impacts will be if that agency does not serve that function. , thankcqueline patterson for being with us, director of the naacp environmental and climate justice program, speaking to us f

now, head of the epa. there was another story that bubbled up concerning you that claims that you did not tell the truth in your senate testimony when you said that you had only used the oklahoma government email for state business. that public search unearthed some 2013 exchanges with lobbyist groups in the oil industry and fossil fuels industries and petroleum industry. they see that as a big problem. did you not tell the truth in your senate testimony, sir? >> martha, we provided all the information with respect to the advocacy that i engaged in as an attorney general, the state's interest. that issue was about fracturing, and the regulatory regime that oklahoma has in respect to that issue. you had steps being taken by federal agencies who were trying to displace that. it was not on behalf of a company, not on behalf of anyone other than the state of oklahoma and i will regulatory environment that we had to sinc. those things have been provided for a number of years, actually. that information is out t

crude sliding below $50 per barrel. >>> the epa agenda.regulations. a first on cnbc interview with epa chief scott pruitt straight ahead. >>> plus, america's cyber threat. we'll tell you why one organization is sending ceos back to class to protect companies from hackers. the final hour of "squawk box" begins right now. ♪ >>> live from the most powerful city in the world, new york, this is "squawk box." >>> good morning. welcome back to "squawk box" here on cnbc, live from the nasdaq market site in times square. i'm joe kernen along with becky quick and the really youthful andrew ross sorkin. >> thank you. >> you are. the futures right now are -- >> i thought you were calling me the future. keep going, keep going. tell them about the future. >> the future of this show. it's a long way off, but you are. oil prices again have been keying off. it's been a while. we were in that 50 to 55 range. now we're below 50 with that big selloff yesterday. that kind of took everyone by surprise. the magnitude of the supply. >> four times as much as had b

chris jenkins in washington with what the executive order means. >> reporter: the executive order, epadquarters, president trump rolling back president obama's power plan to combat global warming. >> the action i'm taking will eliminate federal overreach, restore economic freedom and allow our companies and workers to thrive, compete and succeed on a level playing field for the first time in a long time. that is what this is all about, bringing back our jobs, bringing back our dreams and making america wealthy again. >> reporter: it lifts the moratorium on new call leases on federal lands, signal that the so-called war on call is over bringing much-needed relief to call minors. >> call minors at the epa today heard the president speak were very emotional because their industry has been under assault the last several years was first time in a long time, talk about optimism, there's optimism and hope that we will create jobs across all sectors of the economy. >> reporter: democrats have been quick to attack the order prompting an emotional response from green governors like washington st

. >> reporter: the big loser, the epa, the state department and education. you might be seeing less of this guy. ♪ >> reporter: no more federal funding for public broadcasting. >> i put myself in the shoes of that -- that steel worker in ohio. the coal miner, the coal mining family in west virginia. the mother of two in detroit, and i'm saying, okay. i have to go ask folks for money, and tell them where i'm going to spend it. can i go to those folks, look at them in the eye, and say, i want to take money from you, and kbif toyota koerpgs of broadcasting? >> reporter: and for research. >> the president was straight forward. we're noot spending money on that anymore. >> reporter: but they are intended to help the poor. federal funding for meals on wheels and afterschool programs, nixed. >> they are supposed to help kids who don't get fed at home get fed so they do better in school. guess what? there is no demonstrative evidence they are doing that. >> reporter: but this pennsylvania family disagrees. >> if they weren't in the program, they probably wouldn't ex

i would say that the leading mela factor was epa, still epa. one of the cases i'm sure judge gorsuch would have had fun with was a recent decision under the climate change program of the obama administration, where the agency tried to apply an obscure program called -- dealing with new source review known as psd. how many people in this room have ever heard of psd? boy, i'm sorry for you back there. i'm really sorry for you. this is a very obscure program. and scalia knocks it out in the case this is where to make it workable, the epa takes a threshold of 250 million tons as a trigger to the program and says well no in context to climate change that really is 100,000 tons. that's quite a jump and scalia knocks that and says, we're not going to sit identically on the dock of epa as it goes on the voyage of discovery. so you have a sense that the court was ready, scalia is ready to take on these open-ended delegations. and i think one thing the executive branch can do to help, is when they sent out s.a.p. that they threaten to veto any statute th

but bottom line, it's critical that epa remaine remain strong i support epa. i just want them to do the job and allow the army corps of engineers to do its job. >> but i would say that the rhetoric that is going around about obama is a on-call, okay, that that fosters -- war on-call -- >> it took it away from the army corps and took it to the white house. i know that for a fact. we couldn't get a permit and whatsoever, couldn't do anything spirit i hope -- >> i want to make sure they do their job. >> yes, center dimension, thank you for being here this evening. i'm from fairmont west virginia another one of your hometown folks. so my question actually regards your healthcare d that of the 534 other members of congress pick you all are -- [cheers and applause] spiff you all are covered, you might know where i'm going. >> i'm fine because i just found out about what might healthcare is spirit well, my question is about, the congressional health care plan really is something difficult standard in the united states. >> no no no. >> the point is, is many of your co

now, martha, even his own epa said it can't be done. of the directors that he had put in, lisa jackson of the epa, says even if it could be done, it would not reduce co2 worldwide. on top of that, you got the united states supreme court who is already weighed already weighed in on us and has agreed with us and our president that it is something that would not work, could not work. people are always using their scared statements and are expecting more but nonetheless, it is something that wasn't going to work. >> martha: i watched that moment of the coal miners and a president and i think that is how he won. relating to people like the coal miners in that room. we saw him do it on the campaign trail. we also remember when a coal miner confronted hillary clinton in west virginia, a very revealing moment for her campaign, as well. as a democrat pointed out in ed henry's intro piece, those jobs have to happen. can they happen, can you bring back coal miners jobs in this country at this stage? >> sure. it's a lot of them, there has been fuel

host: you talked about the epa. we have a headline. published animal welfare information from his website. the story details efforts to take infection reports from the website detailing treatment of animals in research laboratories, zoos, dog breeding facilities and other facilities. what happened? guest: this was kind of a weird example of what pops up when you don't have robust leadership on open data. the usda collects a lot of information around animal abuse. everything from research labs to puppy mills. they publish this information in -- if you run a show horse operation, you can find out if someone has a history of animal abuse and is invite them. or you can make sure you not buying from a puppy mill. this is not a political issue. when i believe happened was there was a group of people competing in a show horse competition with a history of abusing animals even their information was on this website. they can play this is violating the privacy. not true, but the usda decided and set of taking prohibitive measures, they just took

you know, epa has been bipartisan for 40 years. these are big-deal things.now why they've decided that our core values no longer include clean air and clean water, but that seems to be what this is about. it's executive orders that are threatening the safety of our drinking water for 117 million americans. this latest news on clean cars is actually rolling back significant benefits that we have provided to people with cleaner air as well as addressing some of the challenge we have with carbon pollution that's fueling climate change. there is literally no way that you can take away a rule that's already been developed with an executive order. but what you can do is send a signal about whether you care about public health and the core values of the american families. and this is -- >> this administration is successful in issuing a lot of executive orders. whether they have teeth for the long haul is another thing to be seen. but as you understand and for these proposals to really make an impact, gina, how long would that take? >> well, you're going to have to