We're a small state. Our quantity of representation in Washington is not as large as a Texas, an Ohio, or a New York. So when decisions are made on the federal level, our voice can get drowned out.
Few things are as sacred and as fundamental to Oklahomans as the constitutional rights of free speech and the free exercise of religion.
This notion that we cannot be about jobs and stewardship of the environment is just simply not right. We've always done that well as a country. We haven't had to choose.
There is a reason and a need to have an Environmental Protection Agency.
I spent a couple years just earnestly praying, asking the question that I don't think we ask enough: 'God what do you want to do with me?' Really getting into our prayer closet, seeking His heart, asking what He wants to do in our lives.
We need fuel diversity as far as the generation of electricity because you can only get so much natural gas through the pipelines.
The 'environmental left' tells us that, though we have natural resources like natural gas and oil and coal, and though we can feed the world, we should keep those things in the ground, put up fences, and be about prohibition.
When I took office in 2011, I made a commitment that the Office of Attorney General would find ways to do more while spending fewer taxpayer dollars.
I think that the more we, as a state, yield and cede decisions to the federal government, the lesser we'll be for it as a state.
We, as a country, have always used innovative technology to advance environmental stewardship, reduction of those pollutants, but also grown our economy at the same time.
We just need to make sure that we get somebody in there that respects the Constitution, respects the rule of law, that restores the proper balance between the states and federal government. I have great confidence Jeb Bush would do that.
There are issues the EPA should be dealing with. When I talk about the EPA and its role with the states, it's not an abolitionist view, that we don't need that agency. It's that the agency should act within the outlines established by Congress.
There is no reason why EPA's role should ebb and flow based on a particular administration or a particular administrator.
For someone to say that someone's a skeptic or a climate denier about the climate changing, that's just nonsensical. We see that throughout history. We impact the climate by our activity. How much so is very difficult to determine with respect to our CO2 or carbon footprint, but we obviously do.
This idea that if you're pro-environment you're anti-energy is just something we've got to change, so that attitude is something we're working on very much.
Agencies exist to administer the law.
I think executive orders with Donald Trump would be a very blunt instrument with respect to the Constitution.
I am a firm believer that federal agencies exist to administer laws passed by Congress, as intended.
The federal government should not be able to hide behind sovereign immunity when the facts don't meet the protections.
There are very important questions around the climate issue that folks really don't get to. And that's one of the reasons why I've talked about having an honest, open, transparent debate about what do we know, what don't we know, so the American people can be informed and they can make decisions on their own with respect to these issues.
