Lee Zeldin

That's a decision for Congress. The EPA is not lobbying Congress for changes to any laws right now. And when Congress changes a law, they could go in one direction or the other. It's our job to follow the law. But if the law gets changed, we stand by, ready to do our job to implement it.

So this is part of a regulatory process that the agency is going to be going through. This is one of the announcements that you just referenced in looking at a 2009 decision called the endangerment finding.

So this is part of a regulatory process that the agency is going to be going through. This is one of the announcements that you just referenced in looking at a 2009 decision called the endangerment finding.

So this is part of a regulatory process that the agency is going to be going through. This is one of the announcements that you just referenced in looking at a 2009 decision called the endangerment finding.

And the endangerment finding was defined many years later as saying carbon dioxide is a pollutant, carbon dioxide endangers public health. But that's not exactly what the endangerment finding came to as a conclusion. What they said was that carbon dioxide, when mixed with these other five well-mixed gases called the greenhouse gases, that they contribute to climate change, not cause, contribute.

And the endangerment finding was defined many years later as saying carbon dioxide is a pollutant, carbon dioxide endangers public health. But that's not exactly what the endangerment finding came to as a conclusion. What they said was that carbon dioxide, when mixed with these other five well-mixed gases called the greenhouse gases, that they contribute to climate change, not cause, contribute.

And the endangerment finding was defined many years later as saying carbon dioxide is a pollutant, carbon dioxide endangers public health. But that's not exactly what the endangerment finding came to as a conclusion. What they said was that carbon dioxide, when mixed with these other five well-mixed gases called the greenhouse gases, that they contribute to climate change, not cause, contribute.

How much? That's not defined. They just say that it's above a de minimis amount and that climate change endangers public health. So we will go through that process. And as we get further along in the process, then we start making conclusions and decisions as to how to go forward on this policy.

How much? That's not defined. They just say that it's above a de minimis amount and that climate change endangers public health. So we will go through that process. And as we get further along in the process, then we start making conclusions and decisions as to how to go forward on this policy.

How much? That's not defined. They just say that it's above a de minimis amount and that climate change endangers public health. So we will go through that process. And as we get further along in the process, then we start making conclusions and decisions as to how to go forward on this policy.

Yet this is something that the EPA has not engaged in a reconsideration of at all since 2009. And also, when they were going through the 2009 endangerment finding process, there was not a consideration of the impacts of what they were doing. And there has since been a reduction of emissions since 2009. There's also been advancements in American innovation since then, advancements in science.

Yet this is something that the EPA has not engaged in a reconsideration of at all since 2009. And also, when they were going through the 2009 endangerment finding process, there was not a consideration of the impacts of what they were doing. And there has since been a reduction of emissions since 2009. There's also been advancements in American innovation since then, advancements in science.

Yet this is something that the EPA has not engaged in a reconsideration of at all since 2009. And also, when they were going through the 2009 endangerment finding process, there was not a consideration of the impacts of what they were doing. And there has since been a reduction of emissions since 2009. There's also been advancements in American innovation since then, advancements in science.

And all of these developments since 2009 obviously were not factored in when that decision was made back then.

And all of these developments since 2009 obviously were not factored in when that decision was made back then.

And all of these developments since 2009 obviously were not factored in when that decision was made back then.

This is the rulemaking process that I am not going to be able to prejudge. I do have opinions that I've shared publicly, and some I've just reiterated, actually, in my answer to your last question. But as far as what that decision will be of the agency and of the administrator formally, that's something that I'll have to wait until we get further along in the process before I'm allowed to

This is the rulemaking process that I am not going to be able to prejudge. I do have opinions that I've shared publicly, and some I've just reiterated, actually, in my answer to your last question. But as far as what that decision will be of the agency and of the administrator formally, that's something that I'll have to wait until we get further along in the process before I'm allowed to

This is the rulemaking process that I am not going to be able to prejudge. I do have opinions that I've shared publicly, and some I've just reiterated, actually, in my answer to your last question. But as far as what that decision will be of the agency and of the administrator formally, that's something that I'll have to wait until we get further along in the process before I'm allowed to

reach a conclusion and have a judgment and a decision.