You're watching...
Republican Sen. James Inhofe explains why he wants an investigation based on controversial 2010 remarks
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
-- -- to answer that could -- -- -- -- I understand that you have.
-- object to something that an EPA officials said what did he say -- -- object -- what they said it is the history six it.
Administrator the EPA.
-- -- -- He is saying -- his philosophy was and we had intercepted video of the audio and video that he was using.
And he likened it to the Romans.
Going through around the Mediterranean they'd they didn't need -- small villages in -- And the first thing they would do would be to crucify the first five -- that they sell.
Let them hang in there and their crosses.
They said then we have under our control from that point not now -- a longer quote deny it and I use that on the senate floor but to me it's intimidation.
That they are doing right now to stop people picked in the oil and gas industry.
I now I what I read that I was I had I was likewise at -- why isn't he gave ministers say something like that.
I went back and looked at the video and it was none of forbes' web site.
And what he said Aniston is the same video that you're twenty -- Is said he said the reason that you want to aggressively go after -- -- companies he said he wants to make examples out of people.
Not complying with the law he -- he was going after oil companies were.
Basically doing things illegally.
He was not an -- not going to the those -- were doing things lawfully.
And doing what prosecutors do it every single name across the country which as you know you go after -- people not comply with a -- Others get the masses and that's the way I when I studied video that's what I saw -- Had the prevalent that is -- I said on the senate floor I use three examples.
In all three examples they were complying with the law.
The problem with -- this huge range resources.
Yeah that's a big difference if -- comply with the lights went after them if they have so ultimately found to be compliant is different than a third not -- but he's sick.
But his -- his aggression -- statement was at the non compliant -- its recent.
Well yes except -- example as I used a documentary on the floor of the United States and like range resources in in Texas they didn't do anything wrong they didn't contaminated water and yet for a years they were hit they were benign this.
As a barrage of insults and seeing these people -- out there -- contaminating the water and all that.
Finally when they found out a year later that they weren't doing that -- very quietly.
On Friday night I suspect when I was watching and they withdrew their complete -- -- being taught him.
They had already written a letter.
Threatening to find them 33000.
Dollars a day.
You put yourself in the position you you have company here after exploring your you're developing resources you not do anything wrong you know -- -- you get beat -- The bureaucracy.
Well look I would like I'm all -- -- nothing on something wrongfully accused and even remember they'll live the second labors and -- -- bill.
To find my tibia which start -- -- need to get my dignity back here so I'm with you on that.
I guess that the thing I'm curious about is it -- where their reasons to at least -- -- suspicion to go after them see whether or not they were compliant or not act and act in.
That's -- of what.
My except the problem with that is they had findings as these that -- saying that we have found that there in violation.
And they felt there innocent and back in the Internet be right.
In the court intervene.
As a matter of fact the court -- this is the one you might remember they're trying to make him look bad so they took the water that was used hydraulic fracturing.
And they -- they read -- and they said they -- -- on fire then the court found out.
That it was not the water they put gas in that water to make it look that way.
So it's a lot worse that you might think I think I just look at this -- if they're going after these people and again credit.
I use examples and only examples of Pennsylvania and other examples on the -- -- it.
This is just one.
-- -- -- of the companies have complied and they're going after the gratuitously I agree that's totally wrong if the companies are not complying with all the rules -- I think he has -- job.
Although I will -- that his words were a poor choice of words believe they'll awkward choice of words around this town but.
But I and I -- I understand what you're saying.
Greta it's intimidation.
And I've been there -- used to -- -- -- owner developer and I've been intimidated that EPA in the years as a long time ago.
And when you stop anything that people who get letters saying we're gonna invoke that finds in this case 33000 dollars -- -- I think that you and I use cases on the floor of the senate yesterday.
Lumber company in Tulsa Oklahoma.
They would have just dropped if they hadn't called me and we said no that just threat you're not have to think -- -- -- -- this -- -- -- -- -- -- That's gonna sit a little like the IRS who goes after people you have very upset they also get these letters -- this huge bills have been doesn't.
You know sort of the saints I -- in the -- circulated talking.
Let's just circle and after -- Obama going after oil and they're using hydraulic fracturing have by the way have to say that that first hydraulic fracturing took place in my state of -- well.
Duncan Oklahoma in 1940 and there's never been documented case of ground ground water contamination.
So that the that president -- which is an important point.
So record it in the president knows it thank you -- drug affected.
You can't -- wouldn't QB that natural gas out of it tight formation without using hydraulic fracture what what's the -- Well -- the motive is if you stop and think about the people who have supported Obama.
The far left I'm talking about the move on or George stores to Michael McCord the Hollywood elites.
They want to do away with possible feel -- this -- a war on possibly.
And that that were on -- -- it if they can do that they can make it non competitive since they and then with the Green energy and that's what he is obligated.
To this far left were so that's that's what it is.
Senate to senate -- so when you -- -- -- if the company is doing something unlawful.
That should be aggressively gone after if they're not -- something unlawful they should be left alone.
Yeah absolutely.
Absolutely and in this case the cases that I use it did not do anything wrong that their reputations were somewhat -- or certainly tarnished in the process and.
And I think that's horrible anyone who has been a wrongfully -- it's a terrible thing that and believe -- That's -- thank you you bet that's -- it.
