Quotes from Scott Pruitt

Ozone is something that we most definitely have to regulate. It's a very important thing to regulate.

My job is to enforce the laws as passed by whom? Congress. They give me my authority. That's the jurisdictional responsibilities that I have, and when litigation is used to regulate... that's abusive. That's wrong.

What I've said about consent orders and consent decrees is that we shouldn't regulate through litigation.

Americans who want a healthy and clean environment expect lawful, effective, and economically sound regulation - the Clean Power Plan failed on all three counts.

When you declare a 'war on coal' from a regulatory perspective, the question has to be asked: where's that in the statute? Where did Congress empower the EPA to declare a war on coal?

The last thing we need in Washington is more federal hubris.

The biblical world view with respect to these issues is that we have a responsibility to manage and cultivate, harvest the natural resources that we've been blessed with to truly bless our fellow mankind.

My kids are wonderfully talented individuals, and their world view is wonderful.

America's infrastructure was once the envy of the world.

Our roads and bridges form the essence of interstate commerce in this country and have for some time.

What the American people deserve, I think, is a true, legitimate, peer-reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2.

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.

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.

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.

I happen to think the Paris accord, the Paris treaty, or the Paris Agreement, if you will, should have been treated as a treaty, should have gone through Senate confirmation.

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.

I've led a grand jury.

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.

Our battles against the EPA and other rogue federal agencies aren't about a desire for dirtier air or zero regulation. They are about our right as a state to control our own destiny and resist attempts by the administration to ramrod a wish list of regulations through agency heads instead of garnering approval from Congress.

The federal government should not be able to hide behind sovereign immunity when the facts don't meet the protections.

Agencies and the executive branch need to enforce the law. They don't need to fill in the spaces if Congress doesn't act.

When an American government takes on characteristics that elevate the state above the individual, it must be vigorously opposed as a form of, or step toward, tyranny.

If you can tell me what gun, type of gun, I can possess, then I didn't really get that right to keep and bear arms from God. It was not bequeathed to me; it was not unalienable, right?

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.