Dan Sullivan

So I think the law has flexibility.

We have to make a determination whether a species is facing an imminent threat, that is, endangered, or whether they are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.

It is about Federal authority because Congress granted Federal agencies to make those decisions.

Too often, as my colleagues in the Senate have already mentioned, the ESA has been used and abused, more as a political weapon.

We had an announcement in terms of offshore development where a large company, Shell, in terms of responsibly developing oil resources off the coast of Alaska, is pulling out, for now.

I think it just seems like a limitless approach to doing this.

There seems like there is no limit to the number of species that you could list in an Arctic State like ours.

That kind of Federal permitting delays doesn't help anyone in our country.

Recovering less than 2 percent of listed species is not good enough, and we must do better.

It becomes almost a craps shoot; three judges who don't know much about any of our States.

As such, many power plants had already shuttered or retrofitted because of the rule's requirement.

I think our regulatory system is largely to blame. Seven years, $7 billion to try to drill one well in America.

When an agency claims to discover a long-extant statute and unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the American economy, we typically greet that announcement with a measure of skepticism.

When the States sue you, that is usually a pretty good indication they don't like the rule.

I think it is outrageous.

I think that is an incredibly arrogant way to look at the rule of law, to look at our oversight of this committee.

I think that is a clear aspect of our oversight, she refused to do it.

The EPA's interpretation is unreasonable because it would bring about an enormous transformative expansion of the EPA's regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.

Does it disturb you that 31 States are suing on WOTUS, 32 are opposing the Clean Power plan?

I think you need to reread these cases, because that is exactly what the Supreme Court said.

All I am saying, Administrator, is your agency has, on a number of occasions, according to this article, criminally charged people for accidental spills, and some have gone to jail on spills smaller than what you just described.

These are just three instances in the last year and a half, two Supreme Court cases where the EPA has either violated the Constitution, the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act.

I know it is not EPA's responsibility, but on BLM land, we have wells that are still leaking oil right now.

Do you believe that agencies like the EPA should be subject to the same transparency in reporting requirements that the public is?

If you think that the EPA should be held to the same standards as private sector companies or a higher standard, do you think anyone from the EPA should be held criminally liable or go to jail for what happened?