[Senate Hearing 111-1178]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1178
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF
LISA P. JACKSON TO BE ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY AND NANCY HELEN SUTLEY TO BE
CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 14, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-020 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
__________
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JANUARY 14, 2009
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 3
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey 6
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey. 8
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.... 10
Barrasso, Hon. John A., U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming... 11
Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico....... 14
Bond, Hon. Christopher ``Kit'', U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 14
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 16
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee.. 19
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland... 20
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia..... 22
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 30
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 31
Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........ 34
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 35
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana..... 36
WITNESSES
Jackson, Lisa, nominated to be Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 37
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 42
Senator Carper........................................... 43
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 46
Senator Cardin........................................... 47
Senator Udall............................................ 48
Senator Inhofe........................................... 49
Senator Voinovich........................................ 60
Senator Isakson.......................................... 66
Senator Vitter........................................... 67
Senator Barrasso......................................... 68
Senator Bond............................................. 70
Sutley, Nancy Helen, nominated to be Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality.......................................... 122
Prepared statement........................................... 125
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Carper........................................... 127
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 129
Senator Cardin........................................... 129
Senator Udall............................................ 130
Senator Inhofe........................................... 130
Senator Voinovich........................................ 136
Senator Isakson.......................................... 139
Senator Vitter........................................... 140
Senator Barrasso......................................... 141
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statement of the Engine Manufacturers Association................ 152
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF LISA P. JACKSON TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND NANCY HELEN SUTLEY TO BE
CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman
of the committee), presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Baucus, Carper, Voinovich,
Lautenberg, Isakson, Cardin, Vitter, Barrasso, Alexander, Bond,
Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Udall, Merkley.
Also present: Senator Menendez.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. The Committee will come to order. We have
very important business ahead of us. I thank everyone for being
here.
This is the way we are going to proceed, just given the
schedule of Senators who are here, like Senator Menendez. So
this is the way we are going to proceed.
So this is the way we are going to proceed. I am going to
make a 5-minute opening statement. Hopefully Senator Inhofe
will make a 5-minute opening statement, and then we are going
to go to Senator Menendez, first Senator Lautenberg, then
Senator Menendez, to do an introduction. Then we will return
here and we will go back and forth. Senator Inhofe and I have
agreed if everyone could try to make their opening statement in
3 minutes, but if you need more time I am happy to allow that,
up to 4.
So I think we are going to get started. I guess everyone
knows, I believe we have a vote at 10:30. So what we will do is
we will go until about 10:40, and then recess and come back. So
we will start now.
I have looked forward to this day for a long, long time.
For me, today marks a turning point for the EPA and the White
House Council on Environmental Quality. These two agencies, in
my view, have a moral responsibility to protect our families
and our communities from environmental threats, from hazards,
from toxics. They have a duty to ensure that the health and
safety of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the
planet we all share is healthy.
Today, this Committee has the honor and privilege of
conducting the nomination hearing for the leadership of two
agencies that are critically important to the health of the
American people.
I want to welcome both of our nominees, Lisa Jackson and
Nancy Sutley. You will hear a lot more about them and from them
as the day goes on.
I am not going to give any background about Lisa Jackson,
because that is going to be done by her two Senators, who
enthusiastically support her. I want to not only welcome Lisa
Jackson, I have had the privilege of discussing many issues
with her in my office and I am very excited about working with
her.
I do want to welcome Nancy Sutley, who has been nominated
to be Chair of the CEQ. Nancy has a long history as a leader in
environmental protection in my home State of California. She
most recently served as Deputy Mayor for Energy and the
Environment for the city of Los Angeles. She was a board member
of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and
served on the California State Water Resources Control Board.
She was a deputy at the California Environmental Protection
Agency. So she comes to us with a great depth of experience and
a great record of accomplishment on behalf of the people of
California.
The State of California has benefited from Nancy's passion
for environmental protection, and I am so pleased that she has
the opportunity to bring that high level of commitment to the
White House.
In the rest of my statement, I want to first talk about the
mission of the EPA. It is pretty simple, and I think we have it
on a chart, because sometimes we get astray from what the
mission is: to protect human health and the environment. That
is the mission. Unfortunately, I believe we have seen the
agency move in a direction diametrically opposed to the mission
it was established to achieve. And that is important. I think
all you have to do is look at these headlines and see how
astray they have gone. I am just showing you a few, if you can
hold them up, because the clock is ticking here.
Blowing smoke, the EPA's rejection of California's proposed
tailpipe emission rules smells like blatant politics; ozone
rules weakened at Bush's behest; EPA scrambles to justify
action; EPA weakens lead rule after White House intervenes; EPA
level of arsenic can lead to cancer; weak limits on soot; EPA
has left thousands at risk; as toxic clouds roll by, EPA
weakens regulation for chemical storage.
Now, that last one is from New Jersey. The Philadelphia
Inquirer is the other one, Contra Costa Times, State College,
Pennsylvania, the Washington Post, L.A. Times. It doesn't
matter where you live and where you look. This is the record.
And this is just a very small part of the record. EPA has a
responsibility to protect public health, not to ignore toxic
pollution. EPA must rely on science, on science, not on special
interests. EPA must listen to its professional staff and
independent experts, not lobbyists. Not industry lobbyists, who
have a special economic stake.
EPA must ensure that our environmental laws protect our
children first and foremost, not ignore the dangerous threats
that children face from pollution. I want to say this: when we
protect our children, we protect everyone. Everyone.
EPA works for the American people. They don't work for a
President, they don't work for us, they work for the people.
And in my view, I believe, and obviously there is disagreement
on the panel, and they will definitely speak for themselves,
they are very good at it, the fact is, I believe the EPA has
hurt the American people, made them less safe these past 8
years.
At this hearing, I intend to ask the nominee for EPA a
series of questions. And I am looking for a renewed commitment
simply to EPA's mission. Nothing more, nothing less.
Like EPA, the White House Council on Environmental Quality
has veered off course, in my view. Its fundamental mission is
to promote the improvement of environmental quality. The White
House Council on Environmental Quality needs to reassert itself
as a key advisor to the President on environmental matters. The
Chairman of the CEQ needs to bring together all the voices in
the Administration for a strong, coordinated environmental
policy. I am going to ask the nominee for Chair of the CEQ to
make a similar commitment to a new direction at this important
White House agency.
The priorities of the leadership in these two agencies must
include ensuring our drinking water quality, strong clean air
safeguards, protective chemical policies, scientific integrity,
transparency, toxic waste cleanup, protecting our natural
environment, and addressing the urgent threat of global
warming, something that all believe has been neglected. At
least some of us believe it has been neglected.
Look, all of us celebrate our grandchildren, and some of us
read to them. Probably all of us do. As I reflect on the last 8
years at EPA, I am reminded of the story of Sleeping Beauty. We
have an agency and a set of laws that are already in place to
do what must be done. But that agency, as it was conceived of
by President Richard Nixon, needs to be awakened from a deep
and nightmarish sleep.
With new leadership, I am confident we can wake up the EPA
and the CEQ to their critical mission: to protect human health
and the environment. So again, I am very thrilled to have both
of you here and looking forward to your testimony.
Senator Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
First of all, let me say thank you to both Lisa Jackson and
to Nancy Sutley. They have been kind enough to visit with me on
the phone and talk over a lot of issues and come by and have
personal visits in my office, which I assume you have had with
other members, too, so you have been very busy. We are now to
the point where we can get down to some of the specifics, and
as a matter of public record.
The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality leads the
Administration's effort to formulate and execute environmental
policy across the Federal Government. It is a critical
position, but like many others in Washington, I am quite
concerned that the Chair's role is being diluted. I had
occasion to do a couple of shows this morning on just exactly
what is the role going to be with the Environmental Energy
``czar,'' Carol Browner. Of course, we dealt with Carol Browner
when she had the position for which you are nominated, Ms.
Jackson, and while we didn't agree on a lot of things, we had a
pretty good relationship.
But this is new now, the new ``czar'' position. I would
like to have both of you, in question and answer time, kind of
elaborate as to what you think it is going to be. Are you going
to be going back where you will be directly dealing, I would
say this to Ms. Sutley, with the President, Administration, or
is this level in between going to change the previous behavior
of that position?
Now, members on both sides of the Capitol and both sides of
the aisle are publicly concerned about the outcome of the
Massachusetts v. EPA case and with the potential regulation of
greenhouse gases under the act. Over the coming weeks I will be
issuing a series of letters and information requests in order
to better understand if, when and how the new Administration
plans to implement this new court-established authority. I
would say authority in capital letters, it is authority, not
any kind of a mandate.
The CAIR Rule is also at the top of my list of concerns,
specifically EPA's ability and timeframe to bring stability
back to the tradable allowance market. As the Committee weighs
its options on this matter, I am hopeful that the new
Administration will resist activists' calls for overreaching,
and instead choose to work toward a similar consensus as was
achieved during the release of the initial CAIR Rule, the
benefits of which were estimated by EPA to be over 25 times
greater than their costs.
Having long been an advocate for a more effective and
accessible government, I want each of you to fully understand
my belief that States and local governments possess unique
local perspectives. There is kind of a mentality in Washington
that if a decision isn't made here, or a position made here in
Washington, it is not worthwhile. I am just of the opposite
view. I think particularly the two of you have had experience
on that level, and I would hope that you would keep in mind
things such as property rights, States' rights, as we progress.
I also have growing concerns about the Superfund program.
EPA needs to, I believe, do a better job. Specifically, I am
troubled with the current case, the Tronox case, which is an
Oklahoma company, that is now filing for Chapter 11 as a result
of some cleanup costs. This Committee, for the 14 years I have
been on it, has had many experiences with cleanups. We have
seen a lot of times people who are responsible to require
cleanup are willing to do it themselves, they can do a good job
and they can do it a lot cheaper than Government can do it. I
think we need to really look at that. I am concerned about that
Tronox case.
But also the Tar Creek Superfund sites, I have talked to
both of you about that. It is, I believe, not one of the most
but the most severe site in the Country. And we have made
incredible success in cleaning it up. We went 30 years not
doing anything but spending millions of dollars. Now in the
last 6 years, we have it so that we have done most of the work
in terms of the relocation of the people. The subsidence was
much more serious than we thought it would be. But we do have,
we are 90 or 95 percent through with this now. I hope that both
of you will work very closely with us on that specific Tar
Creek Superfund site.
Then of course we have the ultimate problem of cleaning it
up. We haven't even addressed that yet. We are trying to get
beyond the point of saving the lives that otherwise could have
been lost in some of the subsidence. It ended up being a lot
worse. That area had never been mapped before until we got into
this thing. So that will be something I want to work very
closely with both of you on.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator
from the State of Oklahoma
Good morning. We are here today to consider the nominations
of Lisa Jackson for Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and Nancy Sutley for Chair of the Council on
Environmental Quality.
The Administrator of EPA implements the agency's mission to
protect human health and the environment. Inherent in that
charge is the recognition that the health of humans and the
environment depends on the health of the economy. The course of
action chosen by the next Administrator will indeed determine
whether people and resources are reasonably protected or, to
the contrary, whether overzealous regulations pull us deeper
into economic turmoil.
The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality leads the
Administration's effort to formulate and execute environmental
policy across the Federal Government. It's a critical position,
but, like many others in Washington, I am quite concerned that
the Chair's role has been diluted by the addition of former EPA
Administrator Carol Browner as White House climate and energy
``czar.'' The law states that the CEQ chair is to report
directly to the President on environmental policy. I sincerely
hope that Ms. Browner's new position will not undermine the
statute's intentions nor overshadow the Chair's autonomy and
judgment. Let me be very clear on this point: The new Senate-
confirmed CEQ Chair will be expected to have the full authority
to represent the White House on all matters before this
Committee.
Both the next EPA Administrator and CEQ Chair will face
immediate challenges on some of today's highest profile issues.
Of particular concern to me are the incoming Administration's
aggressive statements about plans to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions under the Clean Air Act. As you know, I have serious
concerns about the timing and troubling implications that
further regulation could have on our already fragile economy;
those concerns are shared by many across the Country.
Members on both sides of the Capitol and both sides of the
aisle are publicly concerned with the outcome of the
Massachusetts v. EPA case and with the potential regulation of
greenhouse gases under the Act. Over the coming weeks I will be
issuing a series of letters and information requests in order
to better understand if, when, and how the new Administration
plans to implement this new court-established authority.
The CAIR Rule is also at the top of my list of concerns,
specifically EPA's ability and timeframe to bring stability
back to the tradable allowance market. As the Committee weighs
its options on this matter, I am hopeful that the new
Administration will resist activists' calls to overreach, and
instead choose to work toward a similar consensus as was
achieved during the release of the initial CAIR rule--the
benefits of which were estimated by EPA to be over 25 times
greater than their costs.
Having long been an advocate for a more effective,
accessible government, I want each of you to fully understand
my belief that States and local governments possess unique
local perspectives: they are generally best suited to respond
to and prioritize constituent needs. It is my firm belief that
protecting States' rights and private property rights are of
the utmost importance. Unfortunately, the people of Oklahoma
and many other States have seen their fundamental liberties
unreasonably eroded in the name of environmental protection.
I am most recently troubled by the attempt to exponentially
expand the reach of the Clean Water Act under the proposed
Clean Water Restoration Act, which Mrs. Browner supports, as
well as the push to overturn long overdue, incremental reforms
to the Endangered Species Act. I believe that both of these
legislative initiatives are an assault on the original
statutory intent and an attempt to give Federal bureaucrats
authority to make final decisions about local land use; I
believe that both are blatant infringements on the private
property rights.
As the senior Republican member of this Committee, please
know that I intend to do everything possible to oversee and
ensure that Federal agencies stop overstepping the authority
given to them by Congress. I urge the incoming Administration
to afford particular deference to State and local government
knowledge, authority and expertise.
I also have growing concerns about the Superfund program:
EPA needs to do a better job managing many sites. Specifically,
I am troubled to hear that Tronox, an Oklahoma company, has
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to its legacy liabilities.
EPA is currently suing Tronox for the cleanup costs at the
Federal Creosote Site in Manville, New Jersey. This Superfund
site is a prime example of Federal mismanagement.
Finally, I remind you both of my longstanding concern about
the Tar Creek Superfund Site. Since the early 1980s, EPA has
ranked this site as one of the most severe sites in the
Country. We have made tremendous progress over the past number
of years to put together a coordinated remediation plan and
provide assistance to the residents of the area. I am looking
forward to working with you to complete the relocation work
very soon and continue to work on the ultimate cleanup of the
area.
I sincerely hope that both of today's nominees acknowledge
the importance of rebuilding a healthy economy while protecting
the environment and human health, and look forward to hearing
your perspectives on the issues that will be raised today. Most
importantly, I welcome you both to this Committee.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
So as we laid out, we are now going to have Senator
Lautenberg and Senator Menendez make their introductory remarks
about Lisa Jackson, at which point we will go back to opening
statements and we will have 3 minutes a side. Please try to
stick to that. And then we will get to Lisa.
After we are finished questioning Lisa Jackson, we will
then move to Nancy Sutley. I told her she is in a good
position, because we will be a little tired by that time. But
Nancy is ready for all questions.
Senator Lautenberg, I know how happy you are about this
nomination.
Senator Lautenberg. Indeed.
Senator Boxer. Please go ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I
am delighted to be able to greet Lisa Jackson to this
Committee.
I know that we have several friends here, visitors from New
Jersey. Because few issues are of the importance that a clean
environment is to our State, free of toxics, free of pollution.
We work very hard at trying to control these things in our
State. We come there as a result of a strong industrial past
that operated under different rules.
So I am privileged to bring before this Committee Lisa
Jackson. We need the kind of bold and decisive, innovative
leadership on environment that Lisa Jackson has brought and is
going to deliver as the head of the Environmental Protection
Agency. We congratulate her on her selection.
Ms. Jackson has dedicated her life to public service. The
past 3 years, she served as Commissioner of our State's
Department of Environmental Protection. Because of her work,
the rest of the Country looks to New Jersey for ideas on how to
save energy and protect the environment. She has fought to
preserve our State's strong chemical security laws and in
contrast to my friend and colleague on the other side of the
aisle, I think the States do have a responsibility to develop
their own management plans. But I don't discard that which
comes from the Federal Government. It can make the difference
because it can pay a lot of the bills. And that counts.
Lisa has fought to preserve our State's strong chemical
security laws, keep our air clean from pollutants that make
people ill and to stop global warming. Now, before Lisa Jackson
became DEP Commissioner, she served 16 years with the EPA,
first in the Superfund office and then in the regional office.
She has directed thousands of employees in New Jersey, and her
work at EPA itself will help her bring experience that can
successfully manage the EPA's 25,000 employees while remaining
a strong advocate for the environment, and while managing the
process so that funds are not casually spent but are directed
at the place of best result.
Ms. Jackson has no small task before her, as she knows. The
challenges facing our environment are serious, numerous and
threatening. But Lisa Jackson has proven that she can solve
challenges and she can inspire others to follow her leadership.
We are pleased that she is joined here by her husband, Kenny,
who brings enthusiastic support to Lisa's environmental work.
We are pleased to see you.
We have your community members from a town in New Jersey
that has been beset by environmental problems, Ringwood, New
Jersey. We are pleased to have those folks here. They have been
sorely neglected by past EPA activities, declaring sites to be
cleaned up when in fact there is toxicity worse than they were
at the inception.
Together, these community members and Ms. Jackson are
working to clean up the Superfund site that is at Ringwood and
make the area safe for families and their children. I am
pleased to be joined here by my colleague in the Senate, my
friend, Bob Menendez. Bob is someone for whom the environment
is a critical issue. And he has been involved from his early
days in Government and State government and local government,
trying to protect the citizens from our polluted environment.
Bob and I worked together to protect New Jersey's
environment, and I know that he is here because he wants to say
something about Lisa Jackson. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Yes, thank you, Senator.
I would like to ask Lisa Jackson's husband, Ken, to stand
up so we can recognize him. Because there is always a great man
behind a great woman, we know.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir.
And also we would love to see the community members who
came here for this occasion, to rise so we could see you. We
welcome you all here. Thank you very, very much for being here.
And now we will turn it over to Senator Menendez, a real
fighter for the environment. Thank you for being here.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Madam Chairman. To you and
Ranking Member Inhofe and all the distinguished members of the
Committee, I am proud to join my distinguished colleague, for
which the environment is a signature issue for him in his now
several decades of service in the U.S. Senate, in presenting to
the Committee Lisa Jackson, as she is considered for her
nomination to be the next Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
I am confident that the Committee and the full Senate will
see that she is eminently qualified for the position and will
confirm her for this important post.
Lisa's 16 years of experience at the EPA and her experience
leading over 3,000 employees at the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection have given her the administrative and
technical expertise to excel in her new position. But I would
also highlight to you her background in science. When we talk
about having the sound science for some of these issues, as a
chemical engineer, where she developed that expertise in both
Princeton and Tulane, I think complement very well her
managerial experience.
She will not only be the first African American
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, I believe she
will be the best Environmental Protection Agency Administrator
we have seen in the history of that department.
Finally, as Senators, we all know that we can't make all
the people love all the decisions we make all of the time.
There is a famous tee-shirt that Senator Lautenberg and I enjoy
that says, New Jersey: Only the Strong Survive. And Lisa
Jackson has not only survived there, but she has thrived in
developing and implementing policies that have won wide-ranging
praise and respect.
Under her watch, New Jersey has implemented strong flood
plain and riparian buffer rules, passed cutting-edge global
warming legislation, formulated an aggressive energy master
plan to meet our State's impressive climate goals, became part
of the regional greenhouse gas initiative, upgraded 600 miles
of waterways, developed a groundbreaking electronics recycling
law. And I would tell the members of the Committee that if you
talk to members of the New Jersey legislature, and having
served there, I understand how rambunctious that can be, the
reality is that she is praised and respected on both sides of
the aisle, because she has been willing to work with both sides
of the aisle and been not only responsive but responsible.
And I think it is a testament to her that those members of
our State who have been victims of the only Superfund site that
was ever closed and reopened are here today in testament to the
type of leadership that she has exhibited. Those are wrongful
decisions of the past that Lisa Jackson has been part of trying
to make right.
I think the most important thing to glean from her resume
is that she has helped our home State in becoming one of the
most environmentally aware and environmentally responsible
States in the Nation. I think that she will bring, I know she
will bring that same type of effort, commitment and zeal to
this work and to work with all the members of the Senate, on
both sides of the aisle, in a way that pursues the Nation's
interests.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to join my
distinguished colleague from New Jersey in presenting to you
the next Environmental Protection Agency Administrator.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator. I know you have
many other obligations. We excuse you and we thank you very
much for your eloquence.
We are going to go back now, as time permits, to going side
to side here. I am going to list the order of arrival, because
that is how people will be recognized. On our side, the
Democratic side, Klobuchar, Udall, Lautenberg, Whitehouse,
Carper and Merkley. On the Republican side, Barrasso,
Alexander, Isakson, Voinovich and Bond.
I want to make a note here. We are very pleased to again
welcome Tom Udall and Jeff Merkley to the Committee. I know
that Senator Inhofe has been very kind in his gracious remarks.
We welcome you here.
At the same time, we learned that two of our stars on this
Committee, Senators Voinovich and Bond, will be with us for a
couple of years, but after that, they have decided to do
something else, other than continue to serve in the Senate. And
I just want to say, I personally am going to miss both of you.
However, as Senator Voinovich said, don't worry, we are going
to be here for the next 2 years. So I am not worrying, I know I
am going to work with you for the next 2 years.
But it is sort of the sense that two come, two will be here
a couple of years, and go. And we keep renewing this Senate. I
want to say to the newcomers that these two on the other side
of the aisle have been so good to work with. Even when we
disagree, and we have done so, we have a really great working
relationship. So it is a good role model to follow. So I wanted
to pay tribute to both of you.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am sure I speak for
George when I say we will do all we can to keep it interesting
and entertaining. I appreciate the way you have worked with us,
even though occasionally we have a slight disagreement.
Senator Boxer. Sometimes. But this Committee has that
reputation of working well across the aisle, I say to both Lisa
and to Nancy.
So, Amy Klobuchar----
Senator Inhofe. Let me just go ahead and first of all
identify myself with your remarks. I haven't really gotten to
know our new members as well as I look forward to. We did have
breakfast this morning. And what she says is right, we have a
diverse set of philosophies represented on this Committee. I
will really miss these two guys. Kit and George; George, he and
I were both mayors at the same time. He has such a background
in understanding these issues, as does Kit. So they will sorely
be missed.
But I imagine we will just survive, we will have to do it.
Senator Boxer. We will.
Senator Klobuchar, you have the floor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. I echo your
sentiments, Madam Chair, about our two members here. I have
especially enjoyed working with Senator Voinovich on our
Interparliamentarian Canadian Group. I hope you will continue
that for the next 2 years.
I also welcome our two new members as well as Ms. Jackson
and Ms. Sutley. I have enjoyed meeting with you and look
forward to working with you. I am optimistic about your
appointment.
There are really two reasons why I am so excited to welcome
our new leadership on these issues to Washington today. First,
to quote our former colleague on this Committee, Senator
Clinton, I have been very concerned in the last 8 years that
the EPA has been operating in an evidence-free zone. I think it
is time to change. The American people must know the truth
about the water that they drink and the air that they breathe.
They must be able to see the information so that they can make
decisions themselves, and no more back room peeks by a few
Senators at findings by the Environmental Protection Agency. I
would like no more redacted testimony as we go forward on
climate change and no more testimony before Congress intended
to mislead on the facts and the law.
The second reason that I am so excited about our two new
nominees is that we need new environmental policies that work
hand in hand with our efforts at home-grown energy development
and economic growth. I just completed a tour through 22
counties in Minnesota, and I would note, Senator Lautenberg,
when I heard Senator Menendez talk about the tee-shirt in New
Jersey, where the strong survive, it was 25 below zero in
Minnesota last night. So I think we could amend the tee-shirt.
But I saw first-hand in our State the work that is being
done where environmental action and energy job creation go hand
in hand, from the Port of Duluth, where we have seen an
increase in goods coming in with wind turbines, to Morton
Construction, the largest wind construction company in the
Country, that is located in our State, to Sebeka, Minnesota,
where a small telephone company has decided to put together a
small wind and small solar package for their customers who live
in very rural areas, so that they have backup for power, to
Benson, Minnesota, where the dream of a local farmer to grow
his own motor fuel has set a new standard for ethanol plants
everywhere. The Chippewa Valley Ethanol Plant, which began
nearly 20 years ago, is now owned by local farmers and
investors.
Recently, just to give you an example of some of the new
environmental work going on in this field, Chippewa Valley
adopted a new technology to gasify local agricultural waste
like corn cobs to power their production facility. To top off
their efforts at pioneering energy efficient technology, they
even recycle some of their excess product to produce two
premium vodkas under the labels Prairie Organic and Shaker. So
I invite you visit this ethanol plant and then we can celebrate
your confirmation over a shot of vodka--recycled.
As America looks for solutions to our struggling economy,
homegrown energy like solar, wind and the next generation of
biofuels will power a new industrial boom in our economy and
reduce our imports on foreign oil and reduce environmental
pollution. These projects, as you know, create good jobs, and I
look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas about how
protecting our environment will help our transition to a 21st
century energy economy and create good-paying jobs right here
in the United States.
I thank you. I apologize, I will be going in and out,
because the Agriculture nomination is going on at the same
time. I also serve on that committee. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
Senator Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Congratulations to both of you. Congratulations to your
family and friends and associates who are here. And I want to
thank both of you for coming to my office to sit and visit. We
had, I thought, very good and productive discussions. I wanted
to thank you for all of that.
Madam Chairman, Wyoming is very interested in a number of
the environmental issues on which the nominees today will have
a significant impact. And the biggest concern of the people of
Wyoming, a big concern for the people of Wyoming is sometimes
how Federal laws on the books are being used in ways that they
were never intended to be used. That affects our people, the
water, the land and the species.
So we just want to make sure that we operate in a fashion
that is appropriate for the environment but also appropriate
for the people who earn their living in that way. In Wyoming we
have coal miners, in Gillette we have ranchers in Lincoln
County, all fear for their economic future in today's political
environment. From their perspective, a number of environmental
proposals have arisen which really loom large over their
futures, proposals often from people who have never set a foot
in a mine or on a working cattle ranch. Ranchers and miners in
Wyoming know that addressing climate change through the Clean
Air Act is a disaster waiting to happen. Small businesses
across Wyoming are concerned that such a move would lead to
many unintended consequences that could ripple across the
entire economy.
People around Wyoming hear environmental advocates call for
turning the Endangered Species Act into a climate change bill.
That is something that Congress never intended. And when I
talked to a former member of the Senate, Cliff Hanson from
Wyoming, who voted for the Endangered Species Act, no idea
about this use of the law.
Another issue important to Wyoming is the debate over the
true intent of the Clean Water Act. In Wyoming, where the
frontier spirit of smaller government and individual liberty
are still very sacred traditions, there is overwhelming
objection to legislative efforts which would expand the Federal
Clean Water Act jurisdiction over all water within the United
States. The concern I hear from home is that this legislation
would grant the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army
Corps of Engineers virtually unlimited regulatory control over
all wet areas within the State.
And the wet areas change in that State. It is winter in the
Rocky Mountains. The snow will soon be melting. We will have
large, temporary water holes formed on ranches and farms across
the State. Under the bill that was introduced, any activity on
that land that touches these water holes would require a
Federal permit. And that is what has people across the State of
Wyoming concerned.
So it is my hope, Madam Chairman, and both of you, that we
can all work together in a manner that is reasonable with
deference to the legislative branch in terms of the regulations
that will come, using laws that have previously been passed in
ways that were never intended.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I encourage the nominees and
will get into some of that with the questioning, to make sure
that we don't turn laws passed by Congress into something that
they were never intended to do. I look forward to that
commitment from you and to working with you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Barrasso follows:]
Statement of Hon. John A. Barrasso, U.S. Senator
from the State of Wyoming
Madam Chairman, Wyoming is interested in a number of
environmental issues of which the nominees today will have a
significant impact.
Most pressing among these concerns is environment advocates
in certain quarters of our society who want to use Federal laws
on the books in ways they were never intended.
Rather than follow how a law has operated for 20 years,
they seek to rewrite the law.
Rewrite these laws in a way that Congress never envisioned.
I fear that the consequences of operating in this fashion
will prove disastrous, with little environmental gain to show
for it.
Nominees to serve in the highest environmental posts in the
land should not approve of these tactics. They should be weary
of where this might lead and keep in mind the concerns of rural
Americans.
They should advocate that if there are changes in the law
that need to be made, they should draft such changes. Send them
to Congress so that we can debate them, and the American people
can comment on them.
In Wyoming, coal miners in Gillette, and ranchers in
Lincoln County, all fear for their economic future in today's
political environment.
From their perspective, a number of environmental proposals
have arisen which loom large over their futures. Proposals from
people who have never set foot in a mine, or on a working
cattle ranch.
Ranchers and miners in Wyoming know that addressing climate
change through the Clean Air Act is a disaster waiting to
happen.
Small businesses across Wyoming are concerned that such a
move would lead to many unintended consequences that would
ripple across our faltering economy.
One such concern is the possibility of a ``cow tax'' that
would devastate our farmers and ranchers.
This would not only cripple ranchers in inter-mountain
States like Wyoming, but across the dairy and cattle operations
of the Northeast and Midwest.
They also hear environmental advocates calling for turning
the Endangered Species Act into a climate change bill,
something Congress never intended.
Energy, construction and agricultural development could be
halted in the lower 48 States to protect the polar bears at the
North Pole.
In addition, some have speculated that any Federal action
could be subject to a new standard: Does the activity
contribute to global warming and therefore affect the polar
bears?
Another issue important to Wyoming is the debate over the
true intent of the Clean Water Act.
In Wyoming, where the frontier spirit of smaller government
and individual liberty are still sacred traditions, there is
overwhelming objection to legislative efforts which would
expand the Federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction over all water
within the United States.
The concern I hear at home is that this legislation would
grant the EPA and the Army Corps virtually unlimited regulatory
control over all wet areas within a State.
I have serious concerns on how this bill will affect my
home State.
There are significant unintended consequences of this
legislation that will lead to absurd results in Wyoming.
It is now winter in the Rockies.
As the snow melts in spring, large, temporary water holes
are formed on ranches and farms across the State.
Under this bill, any activity on that land that touches
these water holes would require a Federal permit.
Ranchers who use stock water ponds for watering livestock
would be required to obtain a Federal permit before any
upgrades or modifications to the pond occur.
Let's talk about the larger issue for Westerners across the
spectrum--the water shortage in the West.
The West is growing, but the Rocky Mountain West never has
all the water it needs.
The Clean Water Restoration Act bill filed last year will
needlessly delay construction or repair of pipelines, ditches,
canals, diversion structures and wells with more permitting
requirements.
Delays in providing for water delivery not only hurt our
citizens, it also hurts endangered species who need that water
as part of habitat conservation plans and recovery programs
across the West.
We are in the midst of tough economic times across the
Country.
As we debate an economic stimulus package meant to pump
Federal funds in to rebuild bridges and roads, let us be
mindful what the impacts these ``re-interpretations'' of the
environmental laws will have in speeding those projects along.
We must not allow any stimulus investments to be needlessly
blocked by bureaucratic red tape and never ending litigation.
Let us not reverse any gains made by such stimulus efforts
and further drag our economy down.
It is my hope that the nominees will work in a manner that
is reasonable, with deference to the legislative branch, and in
the light of day to ensure our constituents are treated fairly.
Well funded special interests from urban areas can bring a
lot of political pressure to bear on decisions affecting all
Americans.
I encourage the nominees to stand up to these political
pressures and say ``no'' to turning laws passed by Congress
into something that they are not.
I look forward to your affirmative commitment.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I just want to, when we talk about differences on this
Committee, you just saw one. Because the vast majority on this
Committee believe that the Clean Air Act absolutely has a
relevance to carbon dioxide. It is not only in the law, but the
Supreme Court ruled that.
So I agree, let's not go out and look for new ways, let's
do what the law requires. But the fact that some people are
still saying that the Clean Air Act doesn't cover carbon means
they either refuse to accept the Supreme Court's decision or
they didn't read the Clean Air Act or if they did, they
certainly didn't see the words.
But that is the kind of thing you will face here. We really
have very big differences. But we care about each other and we
respect each other. But that is the kind of thing you are going
to see here. And I think this statement by Senator Barrasso
shows that very clearly, so you know what you are getting into
here.
So you are not going to make everybody happy, that is for
sure. You won't be able to. Because if you do, it means you are
doing nothing, and I know both of you want to do something. So
I wanted to make that case.
Now, we have a vote on, and what we are going to do is,
when Tom Carper comes back, I am going to give him the gavel.
We will complete the opening statements, so you can go, vote,
come back. But next on our list is Tom Udall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you today
for the very warm welcome. Let me say to Senator Bond and
Senator Voinovich, we are going to miss your experience.
Ms. Sutley and Ms. Jackson, you come to this hearing with
strong recommendations from President-elect Obama and other
members of his transition team. I look forward to hearing from
you and learning about your ideas to protect human health and
the environment. President Obama has bold plans for addressing
the major environmental issues of this century. His vision of a
strong economy that does not compromise environmental and
public health is inspiring, and I look forward to working with
the new Administration on energy efficiency, global warming,
developing green jobs that bolster the economy and ensuring a
healthy planet for generations to come.
Ms. Jackson, I am anxious to hear more about your extensive
work on brownfields, contamination remediation and industrial
compliance enforcement in New Jersey. And Ms. Sutley, I look
forward to hearing more about your efforts to clean the Los
Angeles air, green the city and protect California's water
resources and water quality. You both have extensive experience
to offer our Nation and the new Administration, and I
congratulate you on your nominations.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Bond.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER ``KIT'' BOND,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, Ms.
Jackson and Ms. Sutley.
I happen to agree with the four on the Supreme on the Clean
Air. So there are differences, we will work out the policies.
But the point I want to make is Missourians treasure their
environment and natural resources. Our Ozark Mountains hold
countless wonders, our majestic caves and our pristine lakes to
hardwood forests. We have great rivers. The Missouri and the
Mississippi run through our State. Our rich soil supplies
everything from corn and soybeans to rice and cotton.
I want to protect these natural resources. I was co-author
of the Acid Rain Trading Provision in the Clean Air Act
Amendments, so we got that done. So I have worked on these
things. I have worked on many things that can clean up the
environment. We have lots of projects that are going on that
can clean up the water, prevent erosion. We are proud of the
progress we are making and that we are going to continue to
make.
But we need to protect our families. They provide the soul
of our churches, the heart of our communities, the brawn of our
cities. And it means not only protecting their health, but
their ability to provide for themselves. And we are suffering
right now, as people are across the Nation. They are facing
housing crises to job loss. And the budget is not going as far
to provide housing, food, higher education and health care.
That is why we support protecting the environment, but
protecting family budgets and worker payrolls, doing it so it
works. That means, for example, protecting Missouri families
and workers from climate change proposals that would raise
energy costs by $6.7 trillion that we debated in here last
year. It is not that Missouri does not want to cut carbon
emissions, we are supporting zero carbon nuclear power. We need
to proceed on that. We are producing low-carbon biofuels and
want to get even more from cellulosic ethanol to expanded
biodiesel.
We want clean cars. We make batteries that can run those
cars. We want clean coal technology, solar and wind power. But
we can't support plans pushed by Northeast and West Coast
States that hit coal-dependent Midwest manufacturing jobs hard.
We are potentially looking at a devastating depression. We
can't support plans that raise the price of gasoline $1.50 a
gallon, or support plans to increase regulation and permit
costs to livestock operations, programs originally intended for
chemical spills or big refiners. Agricultural producers,
farmers are facing problems.
I would urge you to take your new responsibilities to
heart. What may have worked in Trenton, New Jersey may not work
in New Madrid, Missouri; what may be acceptable in San Jose,
California may not be acceptable in Carthage. We want to find a
middle ground. If you are willing to work toward that common
ground in a bipartisan manner, you will certainly have my
assistance, and I wish you both well.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bond follows:]
Statement of Hon. Christopher ``Kit'' Bond,
U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri
Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on
the nominations of Lisa Jackson to be Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and Nancy Sutley as Chairman of
the Council on Environmental Quality.
Ms. Jackson, welcome, and welcome to you, Ms. Sutley.
Missourians treasure their environment and natural
resources. Our Ozark Mountains hold countless wonders, from our
majestic caves and our pristine lakes to our hardwood forests.
Great rivers such as the Missouri and the Mississippi run
through our State, and our rich soil supplies everything from
corn and soybeans to rice and cotton.
In wanting to protect these natural resources, we also need
to protect our families. Our families provide the soul of our
churches, the heart of our communities, and the brawn of our
cities.
In Missouri, protecting our families means not only
protecting their health, but also their ability to provide for
themselves.
Missouri families are suffering right now. Missouri
families face foreclosure from the housing crisis and recession
job loss.
The Missouri family budget is not going as far as it needs
to provide housing, food, higher education and healthcare.
That is why while Missouri supports protecting the
environment, it also supports protecting family budgets and
worker payrolls.
That means, for example, protecting Missouri families and
workers from climate change proposals that would raise energy
costs by $6.7 trillion.
It's not that Missouri does not want to cut carbon
emissions--we support zero carbon nuclear power, low carbon
biofuels and clean cars, clean coal, solar and wind power.
But we cannot support plans pushed by Northeast and West
Coast States that will hit coal-dependent Missouri and Midwest
manufacturing jobs especially hard.
We cannot support plans that will raise the price of
gasoline $1.50 per gallon, or kill hundreds of thousands of
jobs.
Neither can we support plans to increase regulation and
permit costs for livestock operations, especially from programs
originally intended for chemical spills or big refiners.
Agricultural producers are facing a credit crunch too. A
drop in production because farmers cannot get credit will also
hurt families who will face higher food prices.
Likewise, maintaining renewable fuel production is vital to
preserving the investment Missouri made in clean fuel.
I tell you these things because I want both you and Ms.
Sutley to succeed, and I want to work with you to protect the
environment.
But I urge you to take your new national responsibilities
to heart.
What may have worked in New Jersey may not work in New
Madrid, Missouri. What may be acceptable in California may not
be acceptable in Carthage, Missouri.
But if you are willing to listen to middle-America, if you
are willing to find common ground, if you are willing to work
in a bipartisan manner, you will have help from this Senator
from Missouri.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator, very much.
So here is, you know, here is another difference that you
will find, a very fair difference with some colleagues
believing that as you move to protect the environment, in many
cases, you hurt the economy. Others of us believing that as we
look at the past, and I go back to when I served on the local
air quality board, when you move forward to protect the
environment, you create jobs. And we do have this respectful
difference. Again, seeing it today gives you a sense of where
colleagues are coming from.
So here is what we are going to do. I have given the gavel
to Senator Carper. He is going to make his opening statement.
As members come back in who haven't given statements, they will
do that. And as soon as I get back, we will then go to your,
finally, to get to your opening statement.
Senator Carper, thank you so much for rushing back in.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper [presiding]. My pleasure. Thank you, Madam
Chair. Welcome to our witnesses. To Lisa Jackson, welcome back.
You are no stranger here. We are delighted that you have come
back and we are delighted that you have returned as the nominee
to be Administrator for EPA.
Ms. Sutley, my recollection is that this is may be the
first time you have been before this Committee, at least during
the time that I have been here. We are pleased also with your
nomination and are delighted to have this opportunity first, to
meet with both of you in my office earlier this week and now
today to talk with you in this more public setting.
I am going to say some fairly critical things about the
Bush administration. Before I do that, I want to mention a
thing or two that they have done that I warmly endorse. We have
done a fair amount of work here on this Committee on trying to
reduce diesel emissions. And I think one of you is aware of
that. We have had a great partnership in this Committee on
that, and the Administration has done a good job. Also, not
just with diesel emission reduction, but also offshore diesel
emissions.
However, for the last 8 years, the Bush administration has
not provided the information we need on some of the biggest
environmental challenges of our time: global warming, energy
independence, cleaning up our Nation's air. But beyond just
refusing to do its part, the Administration has also held up
any Federal regulations on climate change, despite the Supreme
Court's ruling that the regulation of carbon dioxide is
required under the Clean Air Act. The D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals has had a field day beating on the Bush
administration's fossil fuel emissions regulations, and rightly
so.
The Courts' decisions have sent the EPA back to the drawing
board to rewrite the rules that reduced sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxide and mercury emissions. So we start this 111th
Congress pretty much where we were 8 years ago, with no
meaningful Federal regulations to clean up our dirtiest fossil
fuel power plants. And while we have discussed and while we
have waited for the Bush administration to act, our Nation has
been left all too often breathing our dirty air. And we can no
longer afford inaction on climate change or on air pollution.
Starting today, here in this Committee, we must send the
right signals to industry that will impact their decisions
tomorrow and in years to come. Quite simply, how we address
many environmental issues today will directly impact future
generations. The fellow who was before us a week or so ago, New
York Times columnist and author Tom Friedman, who sat right
where you are sitting, Ms. Jackson, said it is not just
lighting up our house, it is about lighting up our future.
Unfortunately, the new EPA Administration and CEQ chair must
address a host of problems at the same time our Country faces
its worst economic crisis in decades.
With that in mind, we need leaders who can build alliances,
who can work with Congress to help us determine the path
forward that both strengthens our economy and as Senator Boxer
and others have alluded to, strengthens our economy and
protects our environment. We can walk and chew gum and we need
to do that in this instance as well.
I can think of no one more qualified and ready to lead the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on
Environmental Quality during these challenging times than the
two nominees before us today. Ms. Jackson and Ms. Sutley, you
are both principled, pragmatic advocates for environmental and
energy issues, both present strong resumes at the State and
Federal level and with an especially good track record when it
comes to cleaning our air.
Ms. Jackson and I both come from States that are at the end
of the tailpipe, the Nation's tailpipe. The bulk of air
pollution in States like ours comes from emissions generated by
power plants in other States. It harms our health, inhibits our
States' economic activity, but we have no control over the
sources of this pollution.
As Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and
Nuclear Safety, I especially look forward to working with Ms.
Jackson and Ms. Sutley on developing stronger air quality
regulations on our Country's aging fleet of fossil power
plants.
So I am going to put it simply, continued inaction on clean
air in our legislation means that tens of thousands of
Americans will die prematurely from lung-related diseases in
our States. Inaction means that thousands of children who would
have been born healthy will be born with brain defects from
mercury poisoning.
We cannot afford to ignore the other pollutants while we
address climate. So Ms. Jackson, I am delighted to say that Ms.
Jackson shares my vision, a vision a number of us hold, of
developing a comprehensive national approach to slashing
harmful emissions from power plants. I hope she continues to
share this concern.
Both Ms. Jackson and Ms. Sutley have been very active on
climate change and clean energy issues, as we know. We look
forward to hearing more about Ms. Sutley's and Ms. Jackson's
experience and lessons learned as they look to drafting
economy-wide climate legislation.
In closing, we are talking about climate change mitigation,
we cannot forget the transportation sector. The transportation
sector, I think, is responsible for some 30 percent of
greenhouse gas emissions in our Country. Any climate change
strategy that we develop must also require substantial
reductions from our transportation sector, which means more
fuel-efficient cars, cleaner-burning fuels as well as
convenient, reliable alternatives to driving.
I am going to ask unanimous consent to include the rest of
my statement for the record, and now turn to recognize here for
his opening statement our colleague, Senator Alexander.
[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
Statement of Hon. Thomas R. Carper, U.S. Senator
from the State of Delaware
For the past 8 years, the Bush Administration has not
provided the leadership we need on some of the biggest
environmental challenges of our time--global warming, energy
independence and cleaning up our Nation's air.
But beyond just refusing to do its part, the Administration
has also held up any Federal regulation on climate change--
despite the Supreme Court ruling that the regulation of carbon
dioxide is required under the Clean Air Act.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has had a field day
beating up the Bush Administration's fossil fuel emissions
regulations--and rightly so. That court's decisions have sent
the EPA back to the drawing board to rewrite the rules that
reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury emissions.
So we start this 111th Congress pretty much where we were 8
years ago--with no meaningful Federal regulations to clean up
our dirtiest fossil-fuel power plants. And while we wait for
the Bush Administration to act, our Nation is left breathing
dirty air.
We can no longer afford inaction on climate change or air
pollution.
Starting today, here in this Committee, we must send the
right signals to the industry that will impact their decisions
tomorrow and in years to come.
Quite simply, how we address many environmental issues
today will directly impact future generations. As New York
Times columnist Thomas Friedman said: ``It's not about just
lighting up our house, it's about lighting up our future.''
And unfortunately, the next EPA Administrator and CEQ
Chairman must address a host of problems at the same time our
country faces its worst economic crisis in decades.
We need leaders who can build alliances, work with
Congress, and determine a path forward that both strengthens
the economy and protects the environment.
I can think of no one more qualified and ready to lead the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Council of
Environmental Quality during these challenging times than Lisa
Jackson and Nancy Sutley.
Ms. Jackson and Ms. Sutley are both principled and
pragmatic advocates for environmental and energy issues. Both
with strong resumes at the State and Federal levels, and with
an especially good track record when it comes to clean air.
Ms. Jackson and I both come from States that are at the end
of what I like to call ``the Nation's tailpipe.'' The bulk of
air pollution in States like Delaware and New Jersey comes from
emissions generated by power plants in other States. It harms
our health and inhibits our States' economic activity, but we
have no control over the sources of this pollution.
As Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and
Nuclear Safety, I especially look forward to working with Ms.
Jackson and Ms. Sutley on developing stronger air quality
regulations on our Country's aging fossil fuel power fleet.
Let me put it simply: Continued inaction on clean air
legislation means that tens of thousands of Americans will die
prematurely from lung-related illnesses.
Inaction means that thousands of children, who would have
been born healthy, will be born with birth defects from mercury
poisoning.
We cannot afford to ignore the other pollutants while we
address climate.
So Ms. Jackson shares my vision of developing a
comprehensive, national approach to slashing harmful emissions
from power plants and I hope she continues to share this
concern.
Both Ms. Jackson and Ms. Sutley have been very active on
climate change and clean energy.
I look forward hearing more about Ms. Sutley's and Ms.
Jackson's experiences and lessons learned as we look to
drafting an economy-wide climate legislation.
When talking about climate change mitigation, we cannot
forget the transportation sector.
The transportation sector is responsible for about 30
percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Any
climate change strategy we develop must also require
substantial reductions from our transportation sector. This
will mean more fuel efficient cars and cleaner burning fuels,
as well as convenient, reliable alternatives to driving.
But if we are asking the car companies and oil companies to
contribute to the solution, we must require the same of
ourselves by improving our Nation's transportation systems. I
hope that Ms. Jackson and EPA will work closely with the
Department of Transportation to ensure that this area is not
overlooked in any developing climate initiative. In fact, I
hope this new administration views the Department of
Transportation as a key player on its climate and energy team.
I believe Ms. Sutley can help facilitate these conversations.
Ms. Jackson and Ms. Sutley, you have been nominated to
serve at an historic time. The opportunities you will have to
shape the future of our Nation's environmental policy are truly
monumental. And I have confidence that you can, and will, rise
to the challenges presented to you. Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Congratulations, Ms. Jackson and Ms. Sutley, on your
appointments. I have enjoyed our visits. I look forward to
working with you on this Committee, hopefully, and on the
Appropriations Committee, where we will be working together.
I have three things that I would like to mention to you,
all of which we discussed, and maybe you will want to say
something about them in your hearing. One is, Senator Carper
and I have worked together on this issue quite a bit over the
last 6 years, he before that. We need a new CAIR Rule and we
need a new rule on mercury, and they need to be, we need them
soon, because it affects a lot of States, and they need to be
appropriately strong.
It is impossible in Tennessee for the communities of
Knoxville, Chattanooga, for example, to meet their attainment
standards so they can attract industries like the Volkswagen
plant if we don't have strong national standards about sulfur,
nitrogen and mercury. So that is No. 1.
No. 2, in your discussions about the goal of dealing with
climate change, and I am one Senator who has had a cap and
trade carbon bill in ever since I have been a Senator, I hope
you will focus on carbon-free solutions and be careful about
what we often call renewable solutions. Because they are not
really renewable solutions, they are just wind. Now, wind may
be fine for offshore or in Minnesota or some places. But for
example, in Tennessee, the estimates are that if we had all the
wind power we could muster, which would mean putting 800 or so
of these big turbines on our ridges, interfering with our views
of the Smokies, which I would rather not see, it would only
supply 1 percent of our electricity. Yet we are now 40 percent
carbon-free because of nuclear and hydro power and trying to
move that number up. California, as an example, is 50 percent
carbon-free. So Tennessee is doing pretty well in the region,
and I hope that you will think about that.
In addition, as you think about policy to spend money, keep
in mind that subsidies for wind are 27 times greater per
megawatt hour than subsidies for all other forms of renewable
energy, and that is before whatever the stimulus bill does.
Finally, when you deal with climate change, I would suggest
legislation that focuses on smokestacks, tailpipes, and gives
all the money collected from cap and trade back to the people.
I think that is simpler, I think it is less expensive, and the
cost is something Congress can consider. I have a headline from
the Tennessean showing that 30,000 people in the Nashville area
can't pay their electric bills on time already, and TVA has
some of the lowest electric bills in the Country.
So I would take the step of focusing on cap and trade for
power plants, President-elect Obama's standards, and I will
wind up with this, because I see my time is up. A carbon-free
fuel standard, which this Committee adopted at my amendment
when we debated this last year, which would do a better job
than a cap and trade on fuel. And that would be two-thirds of
the carbon produced by the Country. And then take all the money
that comes in from a cap and trade and give it back to people
who are having a hard time paying their electric bills because
of the inevitably increased prices of electricity that will
come from carbon legislation.
I look forward to working with you and I thank the
Chairman-designate for the time.
Senator Carper. You are quite welcome. Thank you for your
statement.
I think Senator Cardin is next. He has gathered the time,
he tells me, from a bunch of other Senators who are not here,
and he is recognized for 45 minutes.
[Laughter.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. They are not here to object, so I figured
it worked out well.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am very much looking
forward to this confirmation hearing for Lisa Jackson and Nancy
Sutley to assume their roles in the Obama administration. I
welcome both of you here and thank you, thank you for being
willing to serve. Thank you for your families, for putting up
with the inconvenience of the responsibilities you are about to
assume. We very much appreciate your willingness to continue in
public service.
I have had the chance to talk with both of you in my
office. So you know the first issue I am going to bring up, and
that is the Chesapeake Bay. The Federal partnership in the
Chesapeake Bay has been extremely valuable for promoting the
appropriate type of remedial action in the Chesapeake Bay, and
has been a real model for our Nation. What I urged in our
private discussions and I will continue to raise today is that
we need leadership from both of you. We need leadership from
this Administration to strengthen the partnership between the
Federal Government and the Bay partners in order to be able to
move forward.
And we are going to be asking you to do that. That requires
leadership and adequate funding. And we are going to be talking
about both. We want to be result oriented. We don't want to see
press releases, we want to see results in the cleaning up of
the Bay. And we look forward to working with both of you in
that regard.
As I requested in our meetings, I would invite you to join
me in seeing first-hand what is happening on the Bay. I thank
you for your willingness to make that a priority of your
agenda.
Ms. Jackson, you and I discussed also the critical problems
of polluted runoff from stormwater. Stormwater is the major
challenge facing the Bay and many other waters of the United
States. Non-point pollution is the least regulated source of
pollution, and the only pollution sector still growing in the
Bay watershed.
In my meetings with Ms. Sutley, we also discussed the need
to make Bay cleanup a priority across all Federal agencies. We
talked in detail about the immediate attention to a long-
simmering dispute over environmental cleanups at military
installations. I feel confident that Nancy Sutley will ensure
that cleanup of Federal facilities will be just as stringent
and receive the same oversight that we require from the private
sector.
Our communities of Fort Meade and Fort Dietrich can be sure
that the environmental experts at EPA will have the ultimate
responsibility for cleanup standards and methods. Our military
families and local communities who support our installations
deserve no less.
During the questioning, I will get into some other issues
that we had a chance to talk about. I do look forward to this
hearing, but more importantly, I look forward to your
leadership on environmental issues for our Nation.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin Cardin, U.S. Senator
from the State of Maryland
Good morning.
We are meeting today to consider nominees for two of the
highest environmental positions in our Nation. I have had the
opportunity to meet with both nominees to discuss their visions
for their respective offices. Based on my discussions, I have
renewed faith that the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort under
the Administration of President Obama will remain a Federal
priority that deserves renewed attention and resources.
During our meetings, I invited both Lisa Jackson, nominee
for EPA Administrator, and Nancy Sutley, nominee to head the
Council on Environmental Quality, to visit Maryland so they can
witness the beauty and the challenges of the Chesapeake Bay
firsthand. I look forward to the first of many official visits
a bit later this year.
I was encouraged by our conversation about the need for new
leadership and strengthened regulatory oversight of the
Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. Transparency and results
should be the hallmark of the new EPA leadership team. The last
8 years of failed leadership are about to end. Positive spin is
about to be replaced by a focus on real accomplishments.
Ms. Jackson and I also discussed the critical problem of
polluted run-off from stormwater.
Stormwater is the major challenge facing the Bay and many
other waters of the United States. Non-point pollution is the
least regulated source of pollution and the only pollution
sector still growing in the Bay watershed.
In my meeting with Ms. Sutley, we also discussed the need
to make Bay cleanup a priority across all agencies of the
Federal Government.
We also talked in detail about the need for immediate
attention to the long-simmering dispute over environmental
cleanups at military installations. I feel confident that Nancy
Sutley will ensure that cleanup at Federal facilities will be
just as stringent and will receive the same oversight that we
require of the private sector.
Our communities of Fort Meade and Fort Detrick can be sure
that the environmental experts at EPA will have ultimate
responsibility for cleanup standards and methods. Our military
families and the local communities who support our
installations deserve no less.
I look forward to hearing more from these two impressive
nominees at today's hearing, to hosting them at meetings in
Maryland, and to a robust working relationship in the years
ahead.
Senator Carper. Senator Cardin, thanks for that statement.
Under the early bird rule, I believe Senator Isakson is next,
then Senator Whitehouse. Then we will come back to Senator
Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to first echo the remarks of Chairman Boxer and
others regarding Senator Voinovich and Senator Bond, two great
individuals from whom I have learned so much in the years I
have been in the U.S. Senate. They will be appreciated in the
next few years and missed desperately after that.
And welcome, our two new members.
I have not had the privilege of talking with Ms. Jackson
yet, however, I have read her resume, and she is eminently
qualified. I have one inside information on her, she graduated
from Tulane University summa cum laude. I am still paying off
my son's tuition from Tulane 20 years later. That is a great
institution, and she is a very significant contributor to that
institution as an advisor.
And with a master's from Princeton, she obviously has the
academic acumen to do it, and management responsibilities in
New Jersey certainly qualify her. My comments to her will
simply be this. My interest is in an environmentally friendly
regulatory body that uses common sense and recognizes what is
going on. One of the unintended consequences of regulation is
sometimes it doesn't work. A prime example in my State, in
Catoosa and Walker Counties, where we are in non-attainment by
EPA and have been, but have no industry to speak of. They
happen to be on an interstate highway. But unfortunately, not
because it is a bad place, it is a good place, but they are
immediately adjacent to Chattanooga, Tennessee, which does have
a lot of manufacturing, and they are downwind.
So they are in non-attainment, which restricts them
greatly, but they are not the generators of it nor can they do
anything about the pollution they suffer from that lowers the
air quality standards. There are ways to find flexibility, I
think, in those standards, to work with communities like that
who end up being punished through no fault of their own because
regulations don't recognize the natural occurrence of things
that have happened.
Second, the potential regulation of greenhouse gases by the
Department has included some conversation about naturally
occurring methane from livestock going into the atmosphere,
resulting in a taxation on livestock. On behalf of my Georgia
farmers, I would just add that there is nothing they can do
about Mother Nature and cattle. I think we have to be very
careful when we start regulating naturally occurring elements,
that we not turn it into a tax once again that they can't do
anything about.
But you are a very accomplished lady. I had the privilege
of working with Carol Browner and I would close with this. Ms.
Browner was a very good regulator. I didn't agree with her all
the time, but she had common sense and still does. We were
talking the other day. She, in Atlanta, which has been in non-
attainment and had a lot of difficulty, a lot of problems for a
long time, she recognized back in 1999 and early 2000 that a
waiver we had asked for for the construction of a bridge that
would transcend the interstate system in downtown Atlanta would
actually contribute to lessening air pollution from
automobiles. And even though it was in non-attainment, she
granted that waiver. And today, air quality standards are
better, because we waived a regulatory prohibition because it
made sense to put in a bridge.
Ms. Sutley, I was proud to be able to talk to you
yesterday. I have only one thing to repeat from what we said
yesterday, and that is that Mr. Connaughton, who has been the
negotiator for the White House and the catalytic agent in terms
of the Georgia, Florida and Alabama water wars, we have been 19
years with a broken-down water compact and the Federal courts
have been regulating drinking water and ACT and ACF for some
time. It is very important in this Administration that we find
a way to get the three States together to come up with a
working water plan. Your experience from California should be
very helpful, because you understand the issues of water.
And I hope the Administration, which in the campaign kind
of sided with Florida, but I understand the politics of that,
will understand we have three States, all of which need to
drink water, all of which need to have it protected. If you can
be a catalyst, as Mr. Connaughton has tried to do, to bring
them together, I will be eternally grateful to you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Isakson follows:]
Statement of Hon. Johnny Isakson, U.S. Senator from the State of
Georgia
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
At the outset I would like to pay tribute to our colleagues
Senator Voinovich and Senator Bond, two outstanding Senators
and members of this Committee who have announced their
retirement. Both of them are former Governors of their States,
and have spent their lives doing what they thought was in the
best interest of the people they represented. The Senate and
Nation are a better place because of their service.
This hearing is a good opportunity for us to learn about
the nominees' vision for the EPA and the Council on
Environmental Quality. I was disappointed that I wasn't able to
have a substantive meeting with Ms. Jackson prior to this
hearing, however I understand that her staff is working to try
and schedule such a meeting. I was able to have a brief call
with Ms. Sutley yesterday, and again understand that her staff
is working toward scheduling a more substantive meeting, which
I look forward to.
I have a number of issues I am eager to hear from the
nominees on. Starting with Ms. Jackson, Catoosa and Walker
Counties in my State were put into non-attainment by EPA, even
though EPA admits that the source of the pollutants that put
them in non-attainment are not in these counties. I am
interested in hearing from her if the EPA under her leadership
will punish rural communities who have air quality issues that
are no fault of their own. If they will continue this practice,
what steps she will take to ensure that these communities are
given the tolls they need to come out from under this
designation.
Another issue I will want to hear from Ms. Jackson about
relates to the EPA plan to regulate greenhouse gases such as
methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide, under the Clean Air
Act that would result in new taxes on livestock operations.
This is of significant interest to me and the farmers in my
State.
The EPA proposal in response to a Supreme Court decision in
Massachusetts v. EPA, which dealt with a petition to regulate
automobile emissions, was to make a finding that any or all
greenhouse gases endanger public health. Once an endangerment
finding is made, EPA cannot restrict its regulations only to
auto emissions, and other Clean Air Act provisions are
automatically triggered, such as the Title V permit program.
Title V requires that any entity that emits, or has the
potential to emit, 100 tons of a regulated pollutant must
acquire a permit in order to continue to operate. Livestock
operations emit more methane and nitrous oxide than carbon
dioxide and both are alleged to be more potent than carbon
dioxide.
States administer Title V permits and permit fees vary,
although the EPA sets a presumptive minimum rate for fees. For
2008-2009, the EPA rate is $43.75 per ton of emitted GHGs.
Using EPA data and USDA statistics, American Farm Bureau
estimates the fees could be $175 per dairy cow per year, $87.50
per head of beef cattle a year and about $20 per hog a year.
Livestock and dairy producers would not be able to absorb
the costs associated with this plan, and many of them would be
forced out of business because farmers are usually price takers
rather than price makers.
Implementation of the EPA's proposed rule could result in
less livestock production in the U.S. while also helping cause
an increase in the importation of foreign livestock.
Finally, small water systems in Georgia and across the
Nation are struggling to comply with several EPA drinking water
rules because of unfunded mandates imposed by the Federal
Government. I cosponsored Senator Inhofe's bill to reauthorize
the technical assistance provision of the Safe Drinking Water
Act which expired in 2003. This bill provided much needed
assistance to community water systems across the country that
face several very technical and difficult Federal drinking
water regulations. I am interested in hearing from Ms. Jackson
whether she will prioritize rural water funding within EPA's
budget because small communities depend on that program to
protect their drinking water quality, and to comply with
Federal mandates.
Small communities are most in need of assistance for EPA
compliance because of their limited technical and financial
resources. Rural water is often the only understandable
assistance small communities receive to operate water supplies,
comply with Federal rules, and apply for Federal funding.
Rural water allows all small towns to work together to
share common resources. This nationwide effort is truly unique
because it accomplishes progressive environmental protection
with the support of the local community.
As you know, without these initiatives effective
implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water
Act in our rural areas would be impossible. And the EPA rules
and their complexity are increasing (disinfection by-products
rules, arsenic enforcement, groundwater rule, coliform testing,
distribution system assessments, TMDLs, Clean Water Act re-
permitting, the Federal bio-terrorism act security reporting,
etc.).
All of our small and rural communities want to comply and
provide safe water, however, they need assistance as to how to
comply with EPA rules in a manner their community can afford
and understand.
I am interested in hearing from Ms. Sutley on her plan to
carry on the good work Chairman Jim Connaughton did in
mediating talks between the Governors of Georgia, Alabama, and
Florida as it relates to water allocation issues in the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa
River basins.
I also would like to enter into the record, Madam Chairman,
a statement by the President-elect on this issue made in
October of this past year and a letter I, along with Senator
Chambliss, sent him in response to his statement. In it the
President-elect said he ``will make protecting Florida's water
resources a priority'' while referencing the ACT/ACF river
basin negotiations that have been going on for 17 years between
Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. This statement was not well
received in my State. I hope this was purely election year
politics in an effort to gain Florida's 27 electoral votes, and
not a statement of preference for Florida's needs over the
people of my State or the State of Alabama for that matter.
From Lake Lanier to Lake Allatoona, from Atlanta to West
Point Lake, and from LaGrange to Columbus, I have worked with
Senator Chambliss, Governor Perdue, and others to find a
solution that benefits not only the people of our State, but
all those who reside in the river basins regardless of what
State they live in. I am hoping Ms. Sutley will clarify that
the President-elect does not wish to undo the good work we have
done to find a solution for all the people in the river basin
and instead prioritize the needs of only the people of Florida.
I thank the Chair for calling this hearing.
[The referenced material follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.004
Senator Carper. Senator Isakson, thank you very much for
that statement.
Senator Whitehouse, I don't think you have spoken yet, have
you?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Not yet, Mr. Chairman. But I appreciate
the opportunity to be with you. I am delighted to welcome our
two nominees and to join Senator Cardin in applauding them for
their decision to embark on this public service journey at a
perilous and I think also fascinating time.
Rhode Island, as the Ocean State, has a long tradition of
environmental stewardship. It has been represented on this
Committee over many years by Rhode Islanders like John Chafee,
who served as the Chairman of this Committee, then his son
Lincoln Chafee, who succeeded him, who was an energetic and
distinguished member of the Committee. I hope that I can
contribute on this Committee as well.
Despite our best efforts, you have not only local Rhode
Island efforts, but regional efforts, like REGI, we remain very
vulnerable to environmental threats from outside, particularly
global warming. Our fisheries, our orchards, our very coastal
infrastructure is vulnerable to the consequences of global
warming. We simply can't do it all alone. In some cases, we
can't do any of it alone. Like Senator Isakson, I can relate to
the concerns about non-attainment. Rhode Island is in non-
attainment, not because of anything we have done, but because
of Midwestern power plants that dump their effluents on our
State. And there is nothing you can do in Rhode Island about
that. I tried, as attorney general, lawsuits and now we have a
chance to work on this from a more national level.
So it really is important, and particularly with respect to
the Environmental Protection Agency. This is an agency that has
fallen into significant disrepute. More than anything else, it
needs its integrity restored. It is important that, from a
scientific and process point of view, the agency have
integrity. It is also very important from a personnel and
staffing point of view that it have integrity.
As you and I both know, the people who work at the
Environmental Protection Agency give up a great deal in their
lives. They are not super well-paid, they all have, almost all,
I suspect, have better and more remunerative opportunities they
could find for themselves. And they go to work every day at the
EPA because they care deeply about and take pride in the
mission of the Environmental Protection Agency. If you take
away that pride by taking away the integrity of the agency,
then you risk losing that key element, that ingredient of the
agency's success, its career dedicated personnel.
I know you know this, but I just want to take this moment
to emphasize it, because the administration of the EPA, under
Administrator Johnson, has been a disgrace to our Country. It
has harmed America and it has grievously harmed this agency and
the well-meaning and honorable people who try to work in it. I
thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
Under the early bird rule, Senator Voinovich is recognized
next, and he will be followed by Senator Lautenberg, and saving
the best for last, Senator Merkley.
Before Senator Voinovich speaks, I want to echo the
sentiments that were just voiced. There is probably no one in
the Senate that I admire more, like more and enjoy working with
more than George Voinovich. We had the opportunity to work
together as Governors, and he is a dear friend and highly
principled member of the Senate. I realize we are stuck with
him for 2 more years, and that is a good thing. But I lament
the eventual loss of this member of our body.
Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Carper.
I welcome the new members from the other side of the aisle
to this Committee, and look forward to working with them, as
well as our Chairman, Senator Boxer.
I have said that I think these next 2 years may be the most
important 2 years that I serve in public office, because of the
condition of our economy and the threat, in all aspects, to the
world economy. And I think some of the work that we are going
to do here on this Committee is going to have a lot to do with
what our future is going to look like.
I am really pleased that I had a chance to meet with our
nominees in my office. I enjoyed our visit. I echo my
colleagues' comments about welcoming you to this business. I
want to thank your families for the sacrifice that they are
going to make in order for you to serve the way you are going
to have to serve to do the job that I am sure we will want you
to do and our President-elect wants you to do.
Having served as a mayor and Governor and Senator, I
understand the needs, concerns and responsibilities that each
level of government brings to bear on the challenges we face as
communities and as a Nation. I really think it is neat that
both of you have had some really good State and local
experience, because that is where the rubber hits the road. I
think those experiences are going to stand you in good stead
when some of these decisions come your way, that you just don't
have the Federal attitude toward some of these things.
Our first nominee this morning is Lisa Jackson to be EPA
Administrator. And I want you to know, and as I told you, I
think it is the most difficult job that one can have in the
Federal Government. I know that there have been some comments
about the other people that have held that office. I want to
say for the record that I think Steve Johnson did an
outstanding job as Director of the EPA. Mike Leavitt, who was a
former Governor of Utah, when he was head of the EPA, I thought
he did a very, very good job. So that is for the record. The
goal is for you to do the very best that you can do with what
God has given you.
Our second nominee is Nancy Sutley, to be Chair of the
Council on Environmental Quality. As with Ms. Jackson, your
experience working on environmental issues with the Federal
Government on behalf of California and the city of Los Angeles
will help you to bring a nice, local perspective. I didn't have
an environmental person when I was mayor of the city of
Cleveland, but L.A. is a big city.
I look forward to working with you on a variety of issues,
including more funding and assistance to local communities to
deal with water infrastructure needs. Senator Lautenberg and I
are well aware of this State revolving loan funds have not been
adequately funded for 10 years. Senator Lautenberg and I put
legislation in to provide some grants to communities. We have
cities all over the Country that are being required to comply
with the law in terms of storm overflow. And frankly, with the
economy today, and I have been told the rates are going to go
up 10 percent each year, and no help from us, it doesn't make
sense. On the one hand, we want to stimulate the economy, and
on the other hand, we have these situations.
Last but not least, I would like to mention the Great
Lakes. Senator Obama, President-elect Obama has made a real
commitment to that. I want you to know that I am going to make
sure that he fulfills that commitment, and hopefully we can get
somebody in either one of your shops that is going to provide
the leadership that we need to get it done.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator
from the State of Ohio
Madam Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for holding
this nominations hearing.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to meet with both
of our nominees prior to this hearing, and I thank them for
making themselves available to meet with members of this
Committee.
Having served as a mayor, Governor and now as Senator, I
understand the different needs, concerns and responsibilities
that each level of government brings to bear on the challenges
we face as communities and as a Nation. I am very pleased that
both nominees before us today have experience serving at the
State and local level. I thank them both for their willingness
to serve, and even more importantly, I thank their families for
their sacrifices. I welcome them and look forward to hearing
from them.
Our first nominee this morning is Lisa Jackson to be EPA
Administrator. In my opinion this is one of the most difficult
positions in the Federal Government. No matter what you do--it
is either too far for industry or not enough for the
environmental groups.
I believe that Mrs. Jackson's past experience working with
the EPA both at the State and Federal level will serve her in
good stead, and I hope that she will be able to bring the
perspective she gained from her work in New Jersey to bear on
an agency that is not always understanding of the needs and
concerns of States.
Our second nominee is Nancy Sutley to be Chair of the
Council on Environmental Quality. As with Mrs. Jackson, the
experience working on environmental issues with the Federal
Government on behalf of California and the city of Los Angeles
that Ms. Sutley will be able to bring to Washington will serve
her, the President-elect and the Country as well.
The perspectives of State and local governments, which both
nominees understand, can help the Federal Government work more
effectively with State and local officials.
I also look forward to working with both of you on a
variety of issues, including:
More funding and assistance to local communities
to deal with water infrastructure needs. There is a crisis in
my State--hundreds of communities are increasing their water
and sewer rates while at the same time they are facing
significant job losses. If the EPA is going to impose costly
mandates on struggling State and local governments, then it
should provide funding for compliance with those mandates.
Strong leadership in efforts to restore the Great
Lakes. I am pleased that President-elect Obama has made a great
commitment to the Great Lakes. As I mentioned to Mrs. Jackson,
we finally have a Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy,
but we have never had someone in DC to devote the time to this
carrying out this plan; and
Harmonizing our environment, economic, energy,
and national security needs through a responsible and balanced
application of the Clean Air Act and any future policy to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am looking forward to
working with you on climate change, and I hope we can come up
with a compromise.
Again, I thank both witnesses for being here today and for
their desire to serve this Country.
Senator Boxer [presiding]. Thank you so much, Senator.
I want to announce who has not spoken yet, this is all in
order of arrival. So it looks to me that we have three, four.
Lautenberg, Merkley, Baucus and Cardin. Oh, then it is three.
So we will go to Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you again, Madam Chairman. To our
good friend, George Voinovich, George, if you find civilian
life a little dull, you can come back in a couple of years.
Senator Voinovich. No, thanks, Frank.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Wait.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. The last 8 years, it is interesting how
the division of views develops as we chat here. And no gloves
on yet. The last 8 years, in my view, at EPA, have been very
disappointing. Global warming, for example, the most serious
environmental threat that we face, we haven't done very much at
the Federal level, and the current EPA prevented States from
taking action at the local levels. When California, New Jersey
and 15 other States fought to cut greenhouse gas emissions from
cars and trucks, under Mr. Johnson, EPA sided with industry
more often than not, and even denied the routine waiver that
would have allowed States to regulate these emissions. And our
CEQ chair knows very well in her State how hard you worked to
try to get a waiver, how often it was denied.
The current Administration has also failed to provide
sufficient funding to run the Superfund program. And everyone
knows how important a program that is. During the 1990s, EPA
averaged more than 80 Superfund sites cleaned up per year. But
in 2008, only 30 sites were cleaned up. And New Jersey has more
Superfund sites than any other State in the Country, and this
EPA has left those sites to decay and allowed toxins to seep
into the neighborhoods where our children live nearby, playing
around those areas. This is EPA's legacy over the last 8 years,
a legacy of disappointment, missed opportunities and secrecy,
where officials refused to even appear before this Committee,
denied an appearance before this Committee.
Well, it is time for a new beginning, time to leave behind
the mistakes of the past and focus on the challenges of the
present and the future. It is time to usher in a better and
brighter future, for this agency, for our environment, for the
health of generations to come. Lisa Jackson and Nancy Sutley
are the right leaders to forge that change.
As I said in my opening comments, Lisa Jackson has the
energy, the expertise, the experience we need to revitalize the
EPA. And we found out that her husband is fully behind the
effort, and we thank you. We are getting two of you.
And Nancy Sutley has a career of experience to draw on as
she advises President-elect Obama on environmental policy.
Once these nominees are confirmed, I look forward to
working with them. I have had a chance to work with Lisa
Jackson in the past, and look forward to continuing that. And
on this Committee, I look forward to passing legislation to
protect our environment and the health of our children for
generations to come.
I thank you, Madam Chairman, for your leadership on this
Committee.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you so much.
Senator Merkley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Lisa Jackson and Nancy Sutley, I am impressed by your
public service credentials that you bring to this Committee and
to this opportunity to serve in the executive branch. It is
clear that cleanup of our environment has been of great concern
to each of you. And it certainly is of great concern to the
citizens of Oregon.
It is our belief in our State that it is so important to
protect the treasures of this planet as a legacy for our
children, and that pursuing that aggressively will also be
great for the economy. And believe you me, we are thinking
about the economy day and night out on the West Coast, as we
are throughout the rest of the Nation.
It has been our experience in the last several years that
it has been up to the State to take leadership. And Oregon has
done just that, creating perhaps the best renewable energy law
in the Country, 25 percent by 2025, on top of the hydro power
that we currently utilize in the State. Probably the most
aggressive law for the efficiency of our appliances,
establishing a 2 percent standard for inclusion biodiesel in
all diesel that will be triggered this year, as a result of the
opening of a new biodiesel plant last year. Expanding Oregon's
landmark recycling bill. Being on the forward edge of
restricting the use of mercury in products. And the list goes
on and on.
But as we look from the West Coast to Washington, DC, we
have been disappointed by the failure of leadership, by the
paralysis of Congress as well as the failure of leadership in
the Bush administration. Now it is time to change that.
Certainly, one of the statistics that was much discussed in my
part of the Country was a survey of scientists who work at EPA.
If I recall correctly, half of the scientists said that they
had been pressured by their managers to modify their findings
for political purposes.
That is an astounding, astounding finding. It is a
systematic effort to degrade science, to degrade the factors
that will help us see clearly into the future. So I certainly
look forward to the type of leadership that both of you will be
able to bring.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
We will go to Senator Baucus, then Senator Vitter, and that
will close the opening statements, and we will get to Ms.
Jackson's statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I add my congratulations to Lisa Jackson and Nancy Sutley
on their nominations. I know you will work very hard, you are
dedicated public servants and you care, and certainly in this
spirit of this new Administration, you are going to go the
extra mile. I congratulate you both and wish you very good
luck.
Marian Anderson, the great American soloist, who 70 years
ago gave a concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, when
she was not allowed to sing at Constitution Hall, gave this
advice about leadership: ``Leadership should be born out of the
understanding of the needs of those who will be affected by
it.'' The EPA has failed to understand the needs of some of our
most vulnerable communities. Nowhere is this more true than in
Libby, Montana, where EPA's failure to declare a public health
emergency has hindered EPA's cleanup efforts and denied medical
care to hundreds of residents.
I have spoken many times about the over 200 people in Libby
that died from asbestos contamination caused by W.R. Grace,
over 200 people have died as a result of the contamination
caused by W.R. Grace. In the year 2001, EPA took chest x-rays
of the people in Libby who had been exposed to asbestos. Well
over 1,000 people showed abnormal lung changes and needed long-
term medical care, over 1,000. At that time, the EPA's
scientists and doctors in Libby recommended that a public
health emergency be declared, so that EPA could have the
authority to do a proper cleanup and provide medical care for
the community. Unfortunately, the White House overruled EPA's
scientists and decided not to declare a public health
emergency.
Asbestos is a sinister poison. Asbestos-related diseases,
once it sets in, sets in decades after the exposure. You don't
know until decades after the exposure. And the suffering is
excruciating, especially with mesothelioma, a particularly
pernicious form of asbestosis. So the people in Libby with
asbestos in their lungs wait. They don't know, they worry that
10, 15, 20 years later, lo and behold, they have it. They wait
to see if they will develop asbestosis or mesothelioma. They
wait for a public health emergency to be declared so they can
get the Federal medical care they need. Otherwise, they are not
going to get the Federal medical care that they need. And then
they worry that that help will never come.
Several years ago, I made a promise to the people of Libby
that I would do all I could to help them. Now I expect both of
you to make me a promise. If you want my support, I need your
commitment that you will come to Libby and see the suffering
that W.R. Grace has caused and the opportunity we have to right
this wrong. And I need your commitment that you will correct
the failure of the current Administration to declare a public
health emergency in Libby.
Leadership should be born out of the understanding of the
needs of those will be affected by it. That is what Marian
Anderson said 70 years ago when she was denied the ability to
sing at Constitution Hall. So I say, come to Libby, meet the
people who are depending on you. If you do this, I am confident
you will do the right thing.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:]
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
I add my congratulations to Lisa Jackson and Nancy Sutley
on their nominations to lead the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality. Marian
Anderson, the great American soloist who 70 years ago gave a
concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial when she was not
allowed to sing at Constitution Hall, gave this advice about
leadership: ``Leadership should be born out of the
understanding of the needs of those who would be affected by
it.''
The EPA has failed to understand the needs of some of our
most vulnerable communities. Nowhere is this more true than in
Libby where EPA's failure to declare a public health emergency
has hindered EPA's cleanup efforts and denied medical care to
hundreds of residents.
I have spoken many times about the over 200 people in Libby
who have died from asbestos contamination caused by W.R. Grace.
In 2001, EPA took chest x-rays of the people in Libby who had
been exposed to asbestos. Well over a thousand people showed
abnormal lung changes and needed long term medical care.
At that time, the EPA scientists and doctors in Libby
recommended that a public health emergency be declared so that
EPA would have authority to do a proper cleanup and provide
medical care for the community. Unfortunately, the White House
overruled EPA's scientists and decided not to declare a public
health emergency.
Asbestos is a sinister poison. Asbestos related disease
sets in decades after the exposure, and the suffering is
excruciating. So the people in Libby with asbestos in their
lungs wait and worry. They wait to see if they will develop
asbestosis or mesothelioma. They wait for a public health
emergency to be declared so they can get the Federal medical
care they need. And they worry that help will never come.
Several years ago, I made a promise to the people of Libby
that I would do all I could to help them. Now I expect you both
to make me a promise. If you want my support, I need your
commitment that you'll come to Libby and see the suffering that
W.R. Grace has caused and the opportunity you have to right
this wrong. And I need your commitment that you will correct
the failure of the current Administration to declare a public
health emergency in Libby.
``Leadership should be born out of the understanding of the
needs of those who would be affected by it.'' Come to Libby.
Meet the people who are depending on you. If you do this, I'm
confident you'll do the right thing.
Senator Boxer. Senator Baucus, thank you. I just want to
say as Chair, every time you speak about this subject, it
touches everybody's heart. And let me say that we do need this
commitment, and I hope you that will ask that question. If you
can't be here because of your work that you have pending now,
please, I will ask it for you and be very happy to do that, as
well.
Senator Vitter will have the last opening statement, and
then we will get to Lisa Jackson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to
welcome both of these nominees, and in particular, starting
with Lisa Jackson, a fellow Louisianan and fellow New
Orleanean, who went to high school literally six blocks from
the home I grew up in. I was delighted to visit with Lisa
recently, talk about many challenges she will confront in EPA,
including some very unique post-Katrina issues and post-
hurricane issues in Louisiana.
I was also delighted she expressed a real willingness to
revisit Louisiana, return to Louisiana very soon to see some of
those pressing issues that involve EPA, including with regard
to Corps of Engineer work, which is very time-sensitive, very
soon.
I haven't had a chance to visit with Nancy Sutley, but look
forward to hearing your views in terms of your prospective role
and the thoughts you would bring to that job.
Clearly, climate change will be a primary topic of
discussion in this Committee and with regard to your jobs. I
hope we discuss that fully, beginning here. I think it is
really imperative that we think carefully about how, when, if
we do that, considering that a very significant new regulatory
burden implemented in the context of the current economic
downturn would have very significant consequences. We need to
think through that very carefully.
Again, I look forward to all of your comments and to the
questioning of the entire Committee. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I wanted to mention to colleagues that we will have 7-
minute rounds. I am willing to stay, and I think Lisa Jackson
is willing to stay as long as it takes, and then we will go to
Nancy Sutley.
Lisa Jackson, once again, welcome, and you have the floor.
STATEMENT OF LISA JACKSON, NOMINATED TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Please allow me to begin by first expressing my gratitude
to you and to Ranking Member Inhofe for holding this hearing;
to Senators Lautenberg and Menendez for their kind
introductions; to all the members of the Committee for their
thoughtful statements; and to many of you for taking the time
to meet with me over the past week.
If I may, Madam Chairman, I would like to re-introduce my
husband, Kenny, whom I am delighted to have here with me today.
My sons, Marcus and Brian, wanted to be here today, but their
demanding mother insisted they go to school instead. I'm also
pleased to introduce friends from the Ramapough Mountain Nation
in Upper Ringwood, New Jersey: Wayne Mann, Vivian Milligan, Jay
Van Dunk and Veronica Van Dunk.
They and too many other Ramapoughs have lived on top of a
Superfund site for decades. They are vivid reminders to me of
how EPA can be a force for good if it does its job well and
what can go wrong if EPA falls short. When I was nominated by
the President-elect to lead EPA, Vivian called me and she
cautioned me with one simple request: don't forget about us. So
I asked them here today, not to offer them empty promises, but
as witnesses to what I hope will be the beginning of my journey
as EPA Administrator.
I am deeply honored that President-elect Obama has
nominated me to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. As
one who has spent 21 years of my career in government service
working to protect public health and the environment, I can
think of no higher calling than to be asked to serve as EPA
Administrator. It would be a particularly special privilege to
head the agency where I worked as a career employee for 15 of
those 21 years.
I joined EPA in 1987 as a staff engineer. Two years later,
I moved to the agency's Region 2 office in New York, where I
served as a project manager for Superfund sites. I worked my
way up through the EPA ranks.
In 2002, I moved to New Jersey State Government. On Mardi
Gras Day in 2006, in honor of my beloved native New Orleans,
Governor Jon Corzine swore me in as Commissioner of the New
Jersey DEP, where I managed an agency of almost 3,400 dedicated
public servants.
Madam Chairman, from a past of public service, I come to
this moment, ready, able and eager to serve our Country and the
President-elect and mindful of the awesome responsibility of
protecting public health and the environment. President-elect
Obama has affirmed two core values that he expects EPA to
uphold during his Administration: scientific integrity and the
rule of law. He has also made it clear that we will operate
with unparalleled transparency and openness. I pledge to uphold
those values.
Science must be the backbone of what EPA does. The
environmental and public health laws Congress has enacted
direct the EPA Administrator to base decisions on the best
available science. EPA's addressing of scientific decisions
should reflect the expert judgment of the Agency's career
scientists and independent advisors.
If I am confirmed, I will administer with science as my
guide. I understand that the laws leave room for policymakers
to make policy judgments. But if I am confirmed, political
appointees will not compromise the integrity of EPA's technical
experts to advance particular regulatory outcomes.
The President-elect's commitment to the rule of law is the
hallmark of a principled regulatory agency. EPA needs to
exercise its policy discretion in good faith and in keeping
with congressional and court directives. I respect this
Committee for its diligent efforts to hold EPA to the rule of
law in recent years, and I pledge to uphold this principle
every day if I am confirmed.
The President-elect strongly believes responsible
stewardship of our air and water can live side-by-side with
robust economic growth. Done properly, these goals can and
should reinforce each other.
The President-elect's environmental initiatives are
highlighted by five key objectives: reducing greenhouse gas
emissions; reducing other air pollutants; addressing toxic
chemicals; cleaning up hazardous waste sites; and protecting
water. These five problems are tough, but so is our resolve to
conquer them. Knowing the bright minds at EPA and the
determination and spirit of Americans, we will.
I was raised in New Orleans. My mother, like so many
others, lost all she had in Hurricane Katrina. Her home lay
vulnerable because of its design, but also because of the
failure of the Government-built levees that were supposed to
protect her. The natural defenses of the marshes and wetlands
south of New Orleans have been destabilized by siltation and
cut by oil and gas lines. The Government agency that was
supposed to respond to the disaster was inept and incapable. In
the face of that tragedy, I almost left public service. But I
stayed because I believe we can and must do better for my
mother and for all Americans.
Like Vivian, Veronica, Wayne and Jay right behind me here,
my mother has suffered from environmental negligence. But none
of them are victims. They are survivors. They are Americans.
They are my conscience. And I pledge today to serve them and
all Americans well. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.036
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much for such a good statement.
I am deferring my opening round to Senator Baucus, then we
will go to Senator Inhofe, because he has to go. Senator, I am
pleased to cede to you my time.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
Chairman.
Ms. Jackson, you heard my statement about Libby. You and I
spoke personally about Libby. I personally asked you to come
visit Montana, come to Libby, Montana, see what is going on in
Libby, Montana. I again make that request to you to come to
Libby. Can I take you to Libby?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Senator. If I am confirmed, I would like
to accompany you to Libby as soon as possible.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that very much.
At this Committee last fall, we held a hearing and released
a report documenting the failure of EPA to declare a public
health emergency in Libby, despite the clear and documented
desire of EPA staff and scientists, when you read the record
you will see that is very clear, including Ms. Whitman. She
also agreed with the recommendation. But they all based it upon
the science, and I am very happy to hear you spent so much
emphasis on science. And based upon the science, the
recommendation was made by staff, by people on the ground in
Libby, and by the EPA regional office, and by the EPA
headquarters that a public health emergency be declared. But
they were overruled by the OMB and by other political
appointees.
Declaring a public health emergency has not been done in
this Country. It is allowed under the Superfund statute. But
declaring a public health emergency would provide EPA with
clear authority to remove some toxic zoolite attic insulation
from homes in Libby and take other remedial action. It would
also require that the Federal Government provide much-needed
long-term medical care for the people of Libby. Libby is a very
important community. And the company, W.R. Grace, has not
provided adequate medical care. In fact, they keep cutting
back, cutting back, cutting back.
So most folks in Libby who have asbestos or asbestos-
related diseases have no medical care, or very little medical
care. They are just left with grossly insufficient attention.
So will you support the declaration of a public health
emergency in Libby so that the cleanup will be done right, and
so the people of Libby can get medical care?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, after we visit, and I do see the
victims of this tragedy, and it certainly sounds like they are
the worst or among the worst of all sites I have ever heard of,
I will review the record, which I believe you referenced, and
which I believe, based on the science and the recommendations
of the EPA staff, will lead to a quick determination on whether
or not a public health emergency does exit. I pledge to do that
as early as possible. It will be one of the issues on my desk
if I am confirmed as Administrator.
Senator Baucus. Will you report back to me within 90 days
on the status of that declaration?
Ms. Jackson. Absolutely, Senator. I will report back within
90 days, for sure.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that. I don't want to over-
dramatize this, and many of my colleagues have heard me talk
about Libby before. But a lot of this for me began with a
fellow named Les Scramstad. I showed you a photograph of Les
when you were in my office. I remind you, 6 years ago, I was
sitting in the living room of a lady named Delia Benefield.
These are all employees of W.R. Grace. There was Les, and he
said, Senator, I hope you can do something for us. I said, I
will. Then he looked at me straight in the eye and he said, a
lot of people say they are going to help us, but most of them
don't, so I will be watching you. Right then, I said to myself,
boy, I have to make sure that Les is taken care of.
Les would come off the hill, up from the mine. He would go
home. He would embrace his wife. His kids would jump into his
lap. He was caked with dust when he walked into the living
room. I have seen those guys come off the hill. They are just
dustbins, they are caked with the stuff. And W.R. Grace knew
that this stuff was contaminated. They knew it. There is right
now a pending criminal case in Federal court by the employees
of W.R. Grace. That dust gave Les, I don't know if he had
mesothelioma, but he certainly had asbestosis. His wife has it,
because she embraced him. His kids have it. He is dead now. He
passed away a couple of years ago.
And just think of the guilt he had in giving that disease
to his wife and his kids. That is common. The stuff is used in
playgrounds, it was used in school yards, it is used in attics.
It is throughout Libby. As I mentioned, over 1,000 people now
are contaminated. And they don't know yet if they are going to
get it, because it is a delayed disease. I have never seen
anything like this, as tragic as this. These people are hung
out there, just hung out to dry.
So when you come to Libby, I think you will see this, and I
am quite confident that you will make that declaration. And
thank you very much for saying that you will report back to me
in 90 days. Because I am not going to let this slide until we
finally get that declaration.
Ms. Jackson. I understand, Senator.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much.
And one other question. It has to do with the toxicity
assessment. In order to know what standards to clean to, you
have to know how contaminated it is in the first place. There
has been no toxicity assessment yet in Libby. How toxic is the
contamination? It is a separate issue. I am not talking about
cleanup. And the EPA has never done a toxicity assessment. So I
also urge you to commit to fully fund and complete this
toxicity assessment for Libby residents so that we know how
clean clean has to be. We have yet to know how dirty it is now,
how toxic it is now, to know what levels to clean to.
So will you make that commitment, to get that toxicity
assessment done?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, if I am confirmed, I will review the
science. I admit that sitting here, I don't know the status of
what EPA has already done.
Senator Baucus. I understand that.
Ms. Jackson. But I am happy to review it and to move it
toward a conclusion on toxicity.
Senator Baucus. Would you mind reporting back to me on that
subject, too, when you report back within 90 days?
Ms. Jackson. Absolutely, yes.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very, very much. I appreciate
that.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
In these last 13 seconds, I wanted to say to my colleague
that you will have, I believe, the full support of this
Committee as we move forward. But I also want to remind
everyone that, working with Senator Isakson, we were able to
write a bill to ban asbestos, which passed through this
Committee and passed through the Senate and died over in the
House. So I just want to remind colleagues, we will be taking
that bill up again as soon as possible. We are introducing it,
reintroducing it.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me finish
what I was going to say when I was paying tribute to our two
departing Senators and our two new Senators on this Committee,
that it is unusual. Because there is some violent disagreement
on some issues. And I know it drives the press nuts, but
Senator Boxer and I really do like each other. And this is
unusual, and Senator Lautenberg, I might say.
But let me just mention, Senator Voinovich is right, I say
to you, Ms. Jackson, when he talked about the difficulty, this
is no Mardi Gras. This job is really tough. And I know that you
realize this. I was very pleased that you singled out just a
minute ago in your opening statement, I normally take the time
to get a review of the written statement, which I did not do, I
confess, but you talked about two things. No. 1, transparency,
which is very, very important. And that would come to the first
question that I would have for you.
I don't agree with the criticisms of many on this Committee
on the current Administration not being forthcoming and
providing all the information needed. I think they have. In
fact, I would join Senator Voinovich in the kind things he said
about Stephen Johnson. There has never been a director, at
least in my memory, who has been more qualified. He came up
through the ranks, and he has the right scientific background
and all that. I think he did a very good job in a very
difficult environment.
So I first of all, in terms of being open and responding to
us, whether it is the Democrats, Republicans, all Senators,
that you will do this, and will be very forthright with us, as
I am sure you will. And judging from our private conversation
in our office, I think you have that commitment. I would like
to get that commitment, to be working with us, Democrats,
Republicans, in a very forthright way.
Ms. Jackson. Senator, if I am confirmed, I look forward to
working with this Committee, through its Chair, but also with
individual members. EPA has long played an advisory role to
Members of Congress on a range of environmental issues, and I
would look forward to working with you and communicating with
you.
Senator Inhofe. Good. I appreciate that.
The second thing you were very emphatic about was the
science. I wrote it down, you said scientific integrity and
rule of the law, that is going to drive you. You said the
Administration has science as my guide. That was music to my
ears. And I hope that includes the recognition that science
changes. I know it is difficult and people don't want to talk
about it. But things back during the Browner Administration,
science was pretty well settled at that time in terms of things
like greenhouse gases, climate change. And then so many of
those individuals who were solidly on that side have changed.
Now, I am going to ask for a commitment from you, and you
had better think about this before you get it to me, I want a
commitment that you will take the time in the next, let's say
in the next 2 weeks, to pull up the record on my last Monday's
speech, it was a whole hour on the floor of the U.S. Senate, on
science, and that you will read my speech and then have a
private visit with me afterwards some time at your convenience.
Would you be willing to do that?
Ms. Jackson. I am taking the time, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. Oh, I want you to.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. You can't take more than 3 minutes, because
that is all I have here.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Jackson. I was watching that clock.
Senator, I am happy to exchange views with you at any point
on science, and am I happy to read your testimony in advance of
our discussion.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you. Since we are almost out of time
and you have your roots in New Jersey, I made mention to the
Manville Superfund site and how it affects Oklahoma and the
lawsuit that is going on there. There are a lot of people who
believe that should have been done for about $20 million. In my
opening remarks I commented on so many times that we see the
EPA coming in and spending more money, and I believe this is
true in some of these cleanups, and I think that has happened
in this case. Of course, they are in Chapter 11 now, so I don't
know how it is going to come out.
But I would like to know if you would share with us your
role in that, and any opinions you want to on that particular
creosote site.
Ms. Jackson. Certainly, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. Very, very briefly.
Ms. Jackson. Sure. At one point in my career, I was the
section chief for Central New Jersey sites. I have been to the
Federal creosote site in Manville, before, I believe it was
before it was ever listed on the Federal Superfund list.
There are well over 100 people who lived on top of what
were essentially wood-treating pools full of creosote. So this
site came to EPA's attention because people had oozing coal tar
in their basements. And if you know about coal tar, it is
particularly aggressive, and it is full of furans and dioxins.
So the site included temporary and I think some permanent
relocations of residents, and then basically a rededication of
that neighborhood, because as I recall, the leadership of the
town made clear that they wanted to restore it to residential
levels. I do know that there has been some legal investigation
of contracting practices, actually I should say the practices
of the contractors who bid on the work at that site. But I
haven't had any direct contact with it since probably the late
1990s.
Senator Inhofe. OK, that is fine. In my office, and I think
that in my opening statement I mentioned that the most
devastating site prior to its cleanup, and we actually got into
this about 6 years ago, was Tar Creek in Oklahoma. As I have
said, it is almost, it is 95 percent done now. I just want to
be sure I get a public commitment from you, as I have a private
commitment, that you will do everything you can to see that
into its final stages.
As far as relocations and that are concerned, all that is
funded, it is done, pretty much done. And I don't think that
anything is going to happen to do that. But do you have the
commitment to complete that, as well as then start addressing a
huge problem that hasn't been addressed, because we are
concerned about saving lives. We didn't know that the
subsidence was as bad as it was when we got into this thing. We
had an elementary school that could have gone down at any time.
So it was serious.
But then we are going to have to deal with the problem of
what are we going to have to do with all the pollution that is
there, and cleaning that up. I would hope that you would
publicly support what we are going to do to complete that site.
Ms. Jackson. Senator, I first want to thank you, because my
understanding is that your support of a subsidence study for
that site was extraordinarily important. My guests here, the
Ramapough people, live on top of an old mining site as well. So
there may be lessons for us to learn in New Jersey from the way
that site was handled in Oklahoma.
Senator Inhofe. I think that is right. We were shocked at
what we found out. It was quite a surprise. And the fact that
it had not been done before, we were dealing in ignorance. We
didn't know how many of those roads should have been closed.
And we are talking about distances down of several hundred
feet. It was just real bad.
I know I am a little over my time.
Senator Boxer. That is all right.
Senator Inhofe. But I am not going to use the second time.
I just want to get one last thing in. And this is just to help
me out.
A lot of the people with whom I disagree, like former Vice
President Al Gore, James Hanson and others, scientific advisors
believe that they would prefer a carbon tax fee or a tax over a
cap and trade system. Now, I don't want anyone to go out of
here saying that I want to have a carbon tax. I don't. But
given the choices of those two, I would take a carbon tax,
probably for different reasons than Hanson and some of my
adversaries would want it. I think it is the more honest way of
doing it.
To me, a cap and trade is a way of obscuring what it really
costs the American people. When we were dealing initially with
the Kyoto Treaty and the Wharton School did the Wharton
Econometric Survey, came to the survey that the range of costs
would be between $300 billion and $330 billion a year, this
was, you know, we needed to get that out so people understood
it. If you have a carbon tax, then people are going to know
just what it is going to cost.
Do you have any thoughts about carbon tax as opposed to cap
and trade?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, the President-elect has clearly,
during the campaign, favored the idea of a cap and trade system
to regulate greenhouse gases. One of the reasons is because of
the cap part. Going back to my discussion of science, a carbon
tax alone, in isolation, does not set an eventual goal for
actual reduction of global warming. So you could have a tax
that doesn't, at the end of the day, meet the goal of reducing
the amount of CO2, for example, in the atmosphere.
That said, I think the goal is to reduce the amount of global
warming emissions and the eventual amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere and reduce climate change.
So I would certainly be open to discussions. I would not
want to forestall any more discussion of carbon tax as an
opportunity. But the President-elect has said that he believes
the cap and trade program is a good way to go for our economy.
Senator Inhofe. Good. Thank you very much, Ms. Jackson. I
am looking forward to working with you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Before I start my questioning, there are a couple of things
you have to agree to if you want to get confirmed.
Senator Inhofe. In addition to reading my speech.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. In addition to reading his speech, which I
think will be very enjoyable, actually, to read it. Because I
have heard it, I could give it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. And he could give mine. This is true.
Let me just say, one of the big disagreements we have on
the Committee is that some of my Republican friends think that
Stephen Johnson was one of the best administrators and some of
us here, many of us have asked for his resignation. So we are
not asking you to get into that. That is yesterday and you are
today and tomorrow.
So I want to ask you this question first. This one is not
official, it is non-official. But in my view, and speaking for
several on my side of the aisle, EPA is a shadow of its former
self today. Morale is lower than low. How do I know that?
Because I am told that by the people who work there. I am not
making it up. They have written us letters. They are on the
record.
To this day, we keep seeing rollbacks. There was one the
day before yesterday. Rollbacks that hurt the people.
So you are walking into a tough situation. And I think you
have the persona to deal with it. So this question is, well, it
is more of an urging on my part. I would urge you to use your
dynamic personality and your character and your experience and
the way you have with people to reinvigorate the EPA by
assuring its employees that the American people need them, that
you need them, that you want them to be strong in protecting
the environment and the public health, and using the best
science to get to that goal.
And can I have your assurance, this isn't the official,
this is just from me to you, your assurance that you will do
that with the employees there in desperate need of that
leadership?
Ms. Jackson. With pleasure, Madam Chairman. I would see
nothing more important to restoring the health of the people of
the United States than restoring the health of the
Environmental Protection Agency itself.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
And these are the official questions. Do you agree, if
confirmed as EPA Administrator, to appear before this Committee
or designated members of this Committee, and other appropriate
committees of the Congress and provide information, subject to
appropriate and necessary security protection with respect to
your responsibilities as EPA Administrator?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, I do agree.
Senator Boxer. Do you agree to ensure that testimony,
briefings, documents and electronic and other forms of
information are provided to this Committee and its staff and
other appropriate committees in a timely manner?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, certainly, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. And do you know of any matters which you may
or may not have disclosed that might place you in any conflict
of interest if you are confirmed as EPA Administrator?
Ms. Jackson. No, Madam Chairman, I do not.
Senator Boxer. That is excellent.
I just want to make a point that Mr. Johnson said yes to
all of this, and he hasn't been here for 7, 8 months. We have
asked him to. So I trust that when you say this, you mean this.
And also, we haven't been able to get information. It has been
a rough go. And I am glad you answered yes. I am going to hold
you to your answers.
Now I am going to get to my questions that have to do with
issues that I care a lot about and others do. USA Today
conducted their own monitoring of air around schools with the
assistance of Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland, to
demonstrate that children in our Nation's schools are breathing
polluted air. Personally, I think this was a prize-winning
series that they did. The headline says it all: Air Tests
Reveal Elevated Levels of Toxics at Schools. The newspaper
found that ``Pollution at levels that could make people sick or
significantly increase their risk of cancer if they were
exposed to the chemicals for a long period.'' That is what they
found. Pollution levels that could make people sick and
increase their risk of cancer.
And I have talked to you about this. This was about a
three- or four-part series. And analysis pinpoints toxic hot
spots in 34 States. So this isn't a question of one school. It
is 34 States.
So do I have your commitment that upon confirmation, you
will immediately ensure that EPA quickly deploys experts to
schools where there is an indication of threat from toxic air
pollution, publicly release the data and take the steps
necessary to address any health threats posed to children? And
will you commit to report to me the steps you have taken and
your plan for action within 30 days after you are confirmed as
Administrator of the EPA?
Ms. Jackson. Well, Madam Chairman, I am a mom. I am like
many mothers in this country. Fifty-three million children go
to school every day. And first and foremost, I believe that
moms and they and fathers, too, have a right to know that their
children are safe when they are in school. I will commit, if I
am confirmed, to first and foremost begin to send investigators
and samplers out to verify the extent of the problem that we
have, to use EPA's current sampling expertise and sampling
capabilities to get additional data. Because I think USA Today
did what investigative journalists do, which is to find a
problem that needs answers, to ask very important questions
about what is going on. I think EPA has the expertise and
authority to do that.
Within 30 days, we will mobilize, if I am confirmed, to get
that information.
Senator Boxer. Well, I can't imagine anything that you
could do, well, I will rephrase it. There are so many things to
do. But I just think something like that, where the impacts are
on our kids, and it is 34 States involved, and I will also add
that EPA did rely on information from the EPA in addition to
assistance from Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland.
So we are talking about science here, and I know you are going
to take a look at how they got there. But this is very
important, and I thank you for that.
Another issue which has been brought to our attention is
the issue of the coal ash waste that we have seen seep out,
first it was Tennessee, and what was the second State? Alabama.
In addition, Pennsylvania, 14 years ago it was Pennsylvania.
And longer than that, there was West Virginia. So it seems to a
lot of us that there is a disaster, that there are disasters
waiting to happen out there. And we have seen a couple of them.
So EPA has the authority to act to address the serious
threats posed by the virtually unregulated State of coal ash
and coal combustion waste sites. Will you commit, after
confirmation as Administrator, to quickly, I am not putting
days on this, to quickly assess these sites for immediate
hazards and use EPA's authority to protect communities,
including quickly establish strong standards at these sites
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The reason this is so important, I would say, is that under
the Clinton administration, the way they left it was for EPA to
regulate. And the last 8 years, EPA has chosen not to. Under
Clinton, they were looking at whether it should be regulated
under hazardous waste or solid waste. And as you know, as we
look at what is in this coal ash, it is quite toxic.
So would you report to me on the steps you have taken and
your plans for acting, not the final conclusion of this, but
what you are doing within the first 30 days that you are
Administrator?
Ms. Jackson. Madam Chairman, I think that you put your
finger on a very important thing that EPA must do right away,
which is to assess the hundreds of other sites that are out
there. Many of them, I think it was you who pointed out to me
in our meeting, are upgradient, if you will, uphill from
schools or from areas where just the physical hazard of having
this wet coal ash, if there is a break, can endanger lives
immediately.
So I would think that EPA needs to, first and foremost,
assess the current state of what is out there and where there
might be another horrible accident waiting to happen. That
said, that is only the beginning. EPA currently has and has in
the past assessed its regulatory options with respect to coal
ash. I think it is time to re-ask those questions and re-look
at the state of regulation of them from an EPA perspective. And
clearly, that is part and parcel, but can be done separately
from a look at the coal technology in terms of looking, as we
modernize coal for the future, that is one of the issues which
we will certainly have to address.
So in terms of a time commitment, I think EPA staff are
currently involved, in some degree, in both of the current
spills. So certainly, it is not a problem to commit that if I
am confirmed, they will continue to do that. But we will then
start to ask the broader regulatory questions.
Senator Boxer. I want to make the point that some of us are
going to introduce, I know Senator Carper is going to have
authority in his subcommittee over TVA. And we are looking at
some legislation that would call upon you to do this. And if we
are not satisfied with action, we may move legislatively. I
don't want to get to that point, because I think you have the
authority to regulate this. It needs to be done.
My understanding is, Congressman Rahall is looking at
regulating it under the Mining Act. That to me is unnecessary,
since you have the ability to regulate right now. We don't have
to pass another law. You could move forward. So I am
encouraging you to do that.
I want to make another point about the assessment of the
waste. As Senator Baucus talked about, making an assessment of
how bad are things. It was pointed out to us that this coal ash
represents a lot of different kinds of coal over the years.
Some of the waste is more toxic. The irony here is that these
are the worst possible wastes that we want to keep out of the
air. And that is why we worked so hard to get them taken out of
the air with the scrubbers.
Now we have this pile of toxics. And some of it is reused,
which is excellent in certain industry products. But the ash
that remains is toxic. And there are different levels and
contaminants. So in your assessment, I would urge you to look
at that. A lot of this waste is stored high above, a holding
pond. So we just need very quick action. This is long
neglected. You are not going to fix it in a day. But we need to
get it fixed.
I have one last question, then I will yield to Senator
Isakson.
Last year, President-elect Obama co-sponsored my bill to
approve California's waiver request, which you know affects 19
States and a majority of the population. He said he would sign
the waiver while campaigning, as did Senator McCain, which was
music to my ears, frankly. Do I have your commitment to
immediately revisit California's request for a waiver after
confirmation and to follow the science, the law and EPA's long
history of precedent on such waivers? They have never, ever
declined a waiver as they did on this one. Would you respond?
Ms. Jackson. Madam Chairman, you have my commitment that if
I am confirmed, I will immediately revisit the waiver, looking
at the science and the rule of law, and relying on the expert
advice of EPA's employees in making a determination.
Senator Boxer. I appreciate that. That is all we ask.
Science, science, science and the rule of law.
I am sorry, I mis-spoke, it is Senator Barrasso who was
here first on the early bird. I am sorry, Senator. Unless the
good Senator will yield to you, we have to stick with the early
bird.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I
appreciate that.
Senator Boxer. I guess not.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. If I could, Ms. Jackson, following up a
little bit on the coal ash issues, and I visited with the
nominee for Secretary of Energy and the nominee for Secretary
of Interior and we talked about clean coal technology and
needing to get to a point of energy and self-sufficiency. I
just wanted to say with coal ash and some of the concerns that
we do not in any way want to limit the potential for additional
research, so that we can employ clean coal technology with
carbon capture and sequestration. I don't know if you have any
thoughts on that.
Ms. Jackson. Senator, coal is a vital resource in this
Country. It is right now the source of generation of about 50
percent of our power. And I think that it is also important for
us to say in the same sentence that it is, the emissions from
coal-fired power plants are the largest contributor to global
warming emissions. So we have to face, square shoulders, the
future and the issues of coal and then move American ingenuity
toward addressing them.
You mentioned one of the technologies that the President-
elect spoke about during the campaign, and that I spoke with
many members of this committee about, and that is carbon
capture and sequestration. I know you visited with the
Secretary-designate. He is fond of saying and has said to me
now twice that we must invest aggressively to get a technology
that will work, and that will work at full scale. Because we,
certainly in this Country, have coal-fired power plants. But
other countries, China, India and others, will as well. So we
must have a way of dealing with those emissions as well, if we
are going to really beat this climate change issue.
Senator Barrasso. Along the lines of climate change, there
was an article in Financial Times last month. It talks about
what we are asking people to do. And it said, saving the planet
demands that people give up holidays, turn down heating and
clean their teeth in the dark. They talk about the pain as
being a virtue in halting global warming, and then what happens
to all of us as consumers and the lives we live.
Can you talk a little bit about what you view the
Administration's role and what they are recommending in terms
of how we live our lives, how this is dramatically going to
impact people, how we travel, what we eat, how we heat our
homes, how much we drive, all in the effort to address climate
change?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, one of the ways that we can begin to
address climate change today is through energy efficiency,
through changing our habits, our buying habits, the appliances
and homes that are available to us to buy, and making them
misers when it comes to energy use. And that can happen
quickly. It has the benefit of addressing climate change, but
also of making us more energy independent.
So I prefer not to think of it as pain as much as
individual responsibility. We are at a point where within
people's abilities and economic means, we are, we need them to
understand that they have an important responsibility in the
choices that they make. It is our responsibility, I believe, to
give them choices, to give them efficient homes to buy or rent,
to give them the ability to cut down on their energy uses, to
give them vehicles that allow them choices, that move us toward
addressing climate change and emissions.
Senator Barrasso. As you and I discussed in the office
yesterday, with efficiencies, when we get a more energy-
efficient refrigerator, we tend to move the other one down into
the basement, and then ultimately we have more efficient
appliances, but we have twice the number. So we are still using
quite a bit of energy.
One of the things that you and I talked about a little bit
was that President-elect Obama has indicated that he is going
to appoint Carol Browner to direct the integration of energy
and environmental policy in the Administration. As you
understand it, how will that work? Who will ultimately make the
final EPA decisions?
Ms. Jackson. Well, Senator, final EPA decisions will be
made by the EPA Administrator. Ms. Browner's appointment into
an Office of Energy and Climate Change will not change EPA's
statutory responsibilities, and in my mind, change EPA's other
non-statutory responsibilities to advise this body, to advise
the President.
Senator Barrasso. And if the two of you disagree on
something in terms of an environmental issue, then how does
that work, between you and the White House?
Ms. Jackson. I believe that if I am confirmed, the EPA
Administrator is bound by law to uphold the laws that list the
EPA Administrator as the official to implement them. So I will
take very seriously my legal responsibilities to enact and
uphold and implement the laws that Congress puts forward for
the American people.
I am sure that advisors can agree or disagree on any number
of issues and her advice and counsel is something I would
certainly seek. She has very relevant experience and she will
be dealing across Government on many issues with respect to
energy and climate change.
Senator Barrasso. In my opening statement I talked about
some laws passed a number of years ago that are now being used
or interpreted in different ways than I think were the initial
intent of the law. I would ask, will you follow these
reinterpretations or come back to the Congress and say, could
you please clarify this so we know exactly what you are talking
about?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, I think that the beauty of many
environmental laws is that they were meant to address not only
the issue of the day but the issues of potentially tomorrow. I
think that that is the hallmark of what makes them strong in
many cases.
So what I can commit to, and what I would be happy to
commit to is an ongoing conversation and communication, so that
we understand each other's views, even if we don't necessarily
agree on all of them, and get input from this Committee, from
each member and through the Chairman from the Committee as
well.
Senator Barrasso. My last question, there have been a
number of regulations issued by the EPA and have been growing
at a fast pace over the recent years, with certain costs passed
on to States without money to help. While the EPA hasn't
lowered its budget, the unfunded mandates, if you will, to the
States has grown. As a former State Senator, I am very familiar
with some of those.
Could you talk about that and the mandates that have come
to the States and the expense to the States? Is that something
that you are going to be cognizant of and work on to try to
make sure that those expenses are not borne by our States
without additional funding from the Federal Government?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, the budget realities for States are
playing out in the news media every day. Environmental programs
are certainly not exempt from decreasing budgets. It is very
true that EPA budgets over recent years have flat-lined at best
State programs and State grants that are meant to pay for
personnel. We see the same thing in grant programs like the
State revolving fund, money that has been cut, that funds
tremendously important work on water quality.
So what I can commit to, obviously the EPA Administrator
has a role in formulating the President's budget, and clearly,
in looking at that role, I would look very strongly at the work
that States do. As a former State commissioner, I know how hard
we work and I know how efficiently we try to do it. Much of the
permitting work and enforcement happens at the State level and
some at the local level. So we will do what we can to find the
appropriate balance between national leadership on
environmental issues and State implementation and local
implementation.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Madam
Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Before I call on Senator Lautenberg and then Senator
Isakson, I ask unanimous consent that all letters of support
for Ms. Jackson be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced documents follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Senator Boxer. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Jackson, I am, as you know, a fan
of yours because of the work that you have done. So I am
enthusiastic about your being here. The fact that our good
friend and former Senate colleague Jon Corzine, Governor Jon
Corzine, who recognized your ability and encouraged and
supported pro, positive environmental law while you were there,
and was extremely disappointed at the fact that you were going
to be leaving his cabinet, but certainly encouraged you to be
interested and to take this job, because he knew that we needed
your kind of talent and commitment at EPA.
So I just wanted to make a note of the fact that it was Jon
Corzine that I checked with to say, hey, Jon, how does this go.
He said, well, those little words perhaps for New Jersey, but a
lot better for the Country. And my friends from Ringwood are
there, Vivian and Wayne Mann and Jay Van Dunk and Veronica. And
I want to make a commitment to you, supported by the knowledge
that Lisa Jackson is going to be chairperson of the EPA, that
we are going to work with you. We know each other and I feel in
some ways like you are part of my group. I have been up to
visit, as you know, and seen you there and seen how dismal
things are by the threats of toxic pollution. When in fact,
Madam Chairman, the EPA discharged this site in Ringwood, New
Jersey, and it pervades the whole community, as being all set
and everything done. If you walk around, you see these huge
paint slogs that have been put there by the Ford Motor Car
Company, just dumped there and continuing to be dumped there.
What it does to the threats to childhood growth and health is
awful.
So we are going to get a lot more done, I can promise you
that. Ms. Jackson has a way, she said if confirmed, if
confirmed. This is an engine that can't stop, I can tell you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. So I want to say that you were
instrumental in writing New Jersey's global warming law, it
calls for 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by
2050. And as Chairperson Boxer knows, we worked very hard to
get a bill through and we came awfully close. But the forces,
negative forces stepped in and wouldn't permit it to happen.
What lessons did you learn that can help you here with the
EPA to finally work to regulate these emissions that cause
global warming? What did you learn that you can employ in the
new situation?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, thank you for the kind words. The
States consider themselves, as you know, laboratories for
invention, for democracy. And the States have, in the absence
of any Federal program, moved forward with programs that I
think on many levels provide extraordinarily important guidance
to EPA and possibly to folks outside the EPA. We now have
operating a modest, a small, modest cap and trade program for
CO2 emissions in 10 States in the Northeast. It is
not a perfect program, it was not designed to be an all-
encompassing step. It was designed to be a laboratory, to show
people that States could come together and begin to regulate
these emissions and deal with some of the real issues of
governance and market manipulation and how do you ensure
against those kinds of issues, so that we would have some real
world experience.
So I look forward to sharing that experience with those who
want to on this Committee and working within EPA and building
on it. We look every day in States, or we did when I was
commissioner, we still do, I am just not there to do it, but
States look every day at energy-efficiency issues and energy
usage issues and renewables at a very different level than the
Federal Government does. They are where the rubber hits the
road, where work happens in terms of energy efficiency and
retrofitting homes and weather-proofing schools and businesses
and people's houses.
So there is a tremendous amount that States will be able to
do along with municipalities in terms of implementing the kind
of energy efficiency programs that will turn the tide on our
energy usage and buy us some real reductions in global warming
emissions.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, what it says is that we have to
try whatever we can to eliminate or certainly reduce this
attack on the well-being of our families, our children, our
grandchildren. And I in this Committee room the other day
called it a plague, the likes of which has never been seen in
the history of man, that we are now facing something that
unchecked, unchallenged, can affect the health of future
generations to a disastrous level. So when we talk here, as we
often do, about job loss, it is a very serious thing.
But we also talk about a green condition that will employ
lots of people and new enterprises, getting our society and our
functioning converted to a positive system. I am pleased that I
was author of legislation that said that the Federal Government
must follow a green standard. We are the largest occupant of
property in the Country. And a significant part of our
greenhouse gases come from just the buildings standing there
that otherwise could be contributing to a positive effect
against greenhouse gas, by making some changes. And new
construction or the renovations by the Federal Government are
going to follow that standard.
Madam Chairman, I assume the record will be held open?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. I thank Ms. Jackson for being here.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
You have been given a lot of deadlines and ultimatums and
there was talk of demanding resignations. I am here to tell you
I have no ultimatums, I have no demands and time limits. And
given your qualifications, I am sure that resignation would
never be a consideration.
However, 33 years of running a business and 32 years in
elected office, I have a suggestion for you to consider. Most
people in regulatory, all people in regulatory positions in
Government have two choices. They can presume that their
relationship with those they regulate is automatically
adversarial, or they can look to find partnerships to solve
problems through those they regulate. The Chairman mentioned
the asbestos bill a little bit ago, when I wasn't here. Senator
Murray and I were the co-authors of that, and we passed through
the Senate an asbestos bill. For the first time in 37 years,
Congress actually got to the point we could ban asbestos.
But because there is one use of asbestos which is an
industrial chlorine filter, for which there is no substitute at
the present time, because we provided for a transitional phase-
out of that asbestos rather than automatic drop, the House
rejected it, and today asbestos is not banned, it is not
regulated. An intolerant attitude caused a problem to be
perpetuated.
In my opening remarks, I mentioned the Atlantic Steel site
in Atlanta where Carol Browner granted a waiver from the Clean
Air requirements to allow us to build a bridge. What I didn't
tell you about that was that bridge was to the Atlantic Steel
brownfields site, a site that for 17 years had been abandoned,
locked up, couldn't be used. Because of Ms. Browner's waiver
with the developer, the developer then took that site,
redeveloped it, replaced all the soil and today it is a town of
25,000 people and an urban city and the private sector solved
the problem, because the regulator saw the benefit in
partnership versus litigation.
So all I want to do is tell you that my attitude has always
been, try and find ways you can do things that cause the right
thing to happen, rather than presume that you are going to turn
over your responsibility to a judge. Because ultimately,
adversarial attitudes cause judicial results. Many times, that
is coming from people who aren't as qualified to make the
decision as you and those you regulate might be.
So I apologize, that was a mini-speech, but I just had to
get that out.
Second, and I will just go to the two questions I raised in
my opening remarks, in Catoosa and Walker County, Georgia, they
remain restricted because of air quality standards. Yet even
the EPA recognizes the pollution is not point generated in
either Catoosa or Walker County. It is generated in Tennessee,
and other States. I hope you will consider, in these unintended
consequences, wherein clean air standards, even clean water
standards, point pollution is where you address the problem, at
the source, not the unintended victim, somewhere either
downstream or downwind. We ought to be able to find ways to
allow those communities to transition, rather than just totally
put them in a punitive non-attainment status. I hope you will
consider that.
Ms. Jackson. Senator, I am happy to consider it, as still a
resident of a State that gets one-third of its air pollution
from outside its borders. As I think Senator Carper said, we
are downwind States. I certainly know the conundrum of needing
stronger controls upgradient in order to even have a chance of
meeting attainment, for example, in the State of New Jersey.
Senator Isakson. Well, it actually is the reason why there
is a joint role between the States and the Federal Government
in terms of these standards. Because there are times that
States' self-interest actually can use the law to its advantage
to not do something because the victim is downstream getting
penalized. So Federal oversight can help to harmonize those two
adjoining States or those two adjoining communities.
Everybody giggled in my opening remarks when I talked about
naturally occurring methane. But agriculture is the biggest
business in Georgia. And the Georgia cattlemen and the Georgia
Farm Bureau are very concerned about the regulation of
greenhouse gases and the unintended negative effect of maybe
taxing cattlemen or other livestock producers who have cattle
that emit methane naturally, as they have since God created the
earth.
So I hope you will consider, in that type of a situation,
when you have something that is totally beyond the control of
the farmer or the rancher, that you will, rather than levying
taxes without consideration for where the source might be and
whether it is natural, that you will take into consideration
that source and that it is naturally occurring.
Ms. Jackson. Senator, I think that what is very important
here is recognizing that there will need to be a look across
the economy at sources, but also a reasonable look. If I am
confirmed, one thing I can certainly pledge is that we will be
reasonable and thoughtful and deliberate about moving toward a
regulatory environment that addresses CO2. And I am
sure cattlemen and ranchers are not the only people who are
worried. Many people across our economy are worried about what
it means to begin to embark on this new world of CO2
control.
So my commitment would be that if I am confirmed, we will
have those conversations, we will try to work with this
Committee, we will work with members and we will work with
individual stakeholders to hear their concerns. But also with
the recognition that all industries have the potential to do
environmental harm, and what we need to do is to work with
them, and sometimes to regulate them in order to make sure that
they are ready for our future as we begin to address global
warming gases.
Senator Isakson. I appreciate that. And my last comment
would be particularly with regard to EPA and EPD, in the
various States, soil sediment and erosion control issues are
tremendous because of the Clean Water Act. And in Georgia, we
went for a number of years with an arbitrary methalometer was
the determinant for all suspended particles and turbidity units
in water. And the EPD in Georgia regulated soil sediment and
erosion control standards by using that arbitrary determinant
of suspended particles.
When it turned out in the spring, pollen became a suspended
turbidity unit in the water, it wasn't somebody polluting it or
runoff or anything else. And we changed our management practice
to use BMPs, best management practices, rather than arbitrary
measurements. So I would just encourage you, as you find ways
to mitigate problems, find ways to seek solutions, to reduce
pollution, that you recognize the tremendous difference of soil
erosion, sediment from State to State, from region to region,
and use management practices as the best determinant rather
than some arbitrary piece of equipment that determines the
number of units that puts somebody automatically in violation,
when in fact again, they might not have had anything to do with
what contributed to the suspended particles.
So best management practices and a partnership approach
with the private sector can solve a lot of problems and keep us
having the cleanest environment in the world. And I wish you
the best of luck.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Boxer. Senator Isakson, thank you.
We are going to hear from Senators Whitehouse, Carper and
Merkley, in that order. If a Republican comes back, we will
work him in between.
I wanted to just state on this conversation you had with
Senator Isakson, a very important one, and he is right, there
are some who are worried about a regulatory regime, cap and
trade, however we move, which is the one I think we will go to,
they are worried about it. But I can assure you, Ms. Jackson,
something I think you know, because I have looked at the polls,
80 percent of this Country are much more worried about the fact
that we have done nothing on CO2. And we know the
ravages of global warming.
So while we must work with those who will have to reduce
the output, and whether it is, and there are challenges out
there. The one thing I want to say as Chair of this Committee,
to my friend, Senator Isakson is, I hope he realized in the
last bill that we did, we were working hard to make sure that
there were resources, so we could find out how we get the clean
coal, so that we could reward farmers who work with us and
build that into whatever regulatory regime that we have.
So yes, there are those worried about regulating carbon.
But far more Americans are concerned that we haven't done
anything, truly, in terms of a national policy. States have
been the leaders. We have so many States, including your own,
my own and others. Anyway, that is just an editorial comment.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Ms. Jackson, there is obviously some dispute on this
Committee about whether the EPA is an agency in distress or
not. My information is that dispute does not extend to EPA. I
think that the career people know pretty well what has happened
to them in the last 8 years and that very significant damage
has been done to the institution.
And it is not just me saying this, it is the GAO pointing
out that EPA processes are without transparency and
inconsistent with sound science. The Union of Concerned
Scientists pointing out systematic interference with EPA
scientists, 60 percent of them indicating that they had been
interfered with in their work for political purposes. Jonathan
Cannon, who served in the Reagan and Bush EPAs, pointing out
extreme friction, institutional damage, demoralized staff. The
EPA's own Clean Air Standards Advisory Committee critiquing,
repeatedly, EPA's activities, including its chair testifying
that standards were set by fiat, behind closed doors, that OMB
and the White House truly set the standard, and that willful
ignorance was the result.
The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has
repeatedly critiqued EPA legal analysis using Alice in
Wonderland examples. Other people on this Committee may
disagree, but I think there is a real problem there, and there
has been a very significant problem there. Although that is
yesterday, yesterday bears on today. Yesterday bears on today
through EPA advisory panels that may still contain industry
representatives that have been packed onto the panel in order
to influence the outcomes, through tainted regulatory
decisions, ozone, lead, soot, the California waiver, mercury.
There have been an array of them.
And I think that in that context, it is very important that
there be at least some effort to review what happened, to make
sure that you know what was done wrong, so that A, you can put
it to right, B, to the extent that it bears on the future, we
can correct that, and C, so that nobody does this again.
Because I think something very wrong was done to a very
important piece of Government.
So for all those reasons, I would ask you for your comment
on what process you consider to be appropriate, given that you
are busy looking forward. You have environmental issues to
protect. What process within EPA do you think would be the best
one, we talked about this in my office, as you recall, for
looking back, documenting what went on, and particularly in the
context of the vacancy in the IG position, or the Acting IG,
what are your thoughts about that?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, when we spoke, you made a suggestion
that I thought was very, very good, obviously. But also echoed
one that I had been thinking. As part of our look at EPA, we
see that the role of the inspector general, the idea of an
audit function, and that has historically been played at EPA at
least in part inside the agency by an independent inspector
general, who has authority and is given the authority by the
Administrator to the staff of, the cooperation of the staff at
EPA. A good inspector general, an independent one, asks the
tough questions to make sure he actually serves the
Administrator well, make sure that the programs are functioning
at EPA as they should, the money is being spent as it should,
that it is independent, that it is truly protecting human
health and the environment, that it is returning to its core
mission, and that it is performing its core mission.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, my strong advice continues to you
to get a good IG, and task them to look back and catalog what
happened and what effect it may still be having on the present.
I would also advise you to watch out for OMB. We have
received repeated evidence that OMB has become sort of the
political bully boy influencing agency decisionmaking in very
often I think inappropriate ways. I have spoken to Peter Orszag
about this, Cass Sunstein's appearance at OMB announces a
promised reform of their agency review process. But I think
that has also been used to corrupt the agency process and to
insert political considerations behind closed doors. So I would
urge you to keep an eye out for that.
The last question I have is, we have talked about the Clean
Air Act, bearing on carbon dioxide. We have talked about the
California waiver, which will bear on carbon dioxide. Rhode
Island is one of the States, so it is also the Rhode Island
waiver. And then of course we have the Warner-Lieberman bill
from last year, and whatever iteration of it should re-emerge,
preparing a cap and trade regime. How do you see those three
elements fitting together, and what rapidly, if anything, do we
need to be considering on this Committee to deal with climate
change. How much can you go forward on your own with the Clean
Air Act Authority and with reliance on the California waiver,
and how much do we need to do here to support you with cap and
trade authority?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, much of the initial agenda for the
EPA Administrator and for the EPA is now set by court decision.
The California waiver, I have already committed that we will,
if I am confirmed, I will review forthwith, and the President-
elect said as much during the campaign. In the Massachusetts v.
EPA decision, the Supreme Court has ordered EPA to make a
finding and EPA has yet to do it. When that finding happens,
when EPA makes a decision on endangerment, let me put it that
way, it will indeed trigger the beginnings of regulation of
CO2 for this Country. And that means an
extraordinary amount of communication with this Committee, and
interaction is going to be necessary. Because it will happen at
the same time as this Committee is potentially, as you said,
considering legislation to address same.
All that is happening in the wake of another court decision
on CAIR, on the Clean Air Interstate Rule, that tells EPA to go
back and remands the decision, holds it up for now so the
State, the Country is not left with no air pollution
regulation, but commands EPA to now go back and review and
potentially propose new regulation or a different regulation.
All those things together mean that there will be an
extraordinary burst of activity, not just at EPA, but I would
expect, potentially, from Congress. And I think there is
tremendous opportunity in those imperatives to move forward
together, to move forward so that we build on what each other
are doing, rather than work at cross purposes.
And industry has said, many have said in industry that if
they had the road map, they would prefer a clear road map. So
to the extent we can, it serves them well, too. Because it
gives them one set of criteria that they know they will be
required to meet, rather than some piecemeal regs and then
maybe law, and then more regs and law. So I think that there is
tremendous opportunity there.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Ms. Jackson. Thank you,
Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Before I call on Senator Cardin, I just want to correct the
record on something you said about the waiver. You committed to
review it. And you committed also that science would guide you
and professionals would guide you at EPA, for which I am
eternally grateful. You also said the President-elect committed
to review the waiver. He didn't. He committed to sign the
waiver. And he not only committed to sign the waiver, but he
was a co-sponsor on our bill to grant the waiver. So I wanted
to separate out what you said about him with what he actually
said. I think it is important we remember, he said he would
sign it and he was a co-sponsor of the bill to grant it. So I
want to make sure that happened.
The other thing I would like to put in the record at this
time, I just want to say before Senator Whitehouse leaves, in
this new Committee structure, Senator Whitehouse can be very
involved in vigorous oversight. So you will be talking a lot
with him in the future.
We just got hot off the press the following. A Federal
judge has ordered the Tennessee Valley Authority to clean up
four coal-fired plants that he said were engulfing parts of
North Carolina with air pollution emissions that fouled the
region's health, economy and natural resources. The Attorney
General of North Carolina announces how pleased he is with
this.
The judge says, in this case, North Carolina has presented
sufficient evidence that untreated air pollution from the three
power plants in Eastern Tennessee unreasonably interferes with
rights of North Carolina's citizens, he wrote in his statement.
The judge ruled TVA must install and maintain pollution
controls at the Widow Creek plant in Alabama. TVA's failure to
speedily install readily available pollution control technology
is not and has not been reasonable conduct under the
circumstances. And this article goes on.
I just want to say, and I think you know this, Ms. Jackson,
that if it hadn't been for the courts these last 8 years, I
don't know how much more cancer there would have been, I don't
know how many more sick kids with asthma there would have been.
But the courts have acted as a check against EPA. However,
there is so much more out there that you need to review. Those
midnight regulations, those rollbacks after the last 8 years. I
asked my staff how many rollbacks, and they said if you listed
the rollbacks, they would go from probably one end of Dirksen
all the way to the other.
So the courts have played an enormous and positive role in
stopping some of the worst of it. I am sad to say to my
colleague, Senator Carper, who will be overseeing TVA, that TVA
is bemoaning this decision. I think those days are over. They
need to stop bemoaning cleaning up the environment and work
with us. I know under your leadership they are going to go that
direction.
Senator Cardin, Senator Carper, Senator Merkley.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Let me
just concur with your comments, particularly on the California
waiver. I am another co-sponsor of that bill, and we look
forward to science prevailing and the California waiver going
forward, which Maryland is one of those States that have
adopted the California position.
Ms. Jackson, I want to return to the Chesapeake Bay. I
thank you for our conversations. Speaking on behalf of the 17
million people who live in the watershed, its importance to our
Country, we need leadership. I know that you have indicated you
planned to visit the Bay with me, and we will see first-hand
the work that is being done.
The Federal partnership requires leadership, requires
strategies based upon facts and science, not based upon any
just trying to feel good, but really making the progress that
we need. I want to give you a moment to reflect on that, and I
hope that you will make a very strong commitment in regard to
the Federal Government's partnership with the Bay.
Ms. Jackson. Senator, as we discussed, I look forward to
visiting the Bay with you. I believe that the Federal
Government's partnership is important, not only because of the
extraordinary treasure that is the Chesapeake Bay, and the
extraordinary need to return it to health, to the ecosystem
that it is and can be in all of its glory, but because it is
such an important demonstration to the rest of the estuary
programs in the rest of the Country of the power of EPA and
States, because the States are certainly involved, to turn the
tide, to reverse the trends in non-point source pollution that
are affecting the Chesapeake Bay.
I am happy, if confirmed, to commit to raising the bar even
further on the Federal Government's level of commitment to this
extraordinary resource, and to doing something you referenced
in your question, which is making sure that science, that EPA
career employees who are working on it don't feel the need to
hide the truth of what is working and not working, because they
are worried about resources being taken away from them. We need
to be able to have an honest dialog about where we haven't been
able to see the improvements.
Senator Cardin. I thank you for that. I agree with you
completely.
I am going to mention two areas of specifics for the Bay.
One is the nutrient problem. You have already mentioned the
stormwater runoff issues, non-point pollution sources. Another
causing nutrient is the wastewater treatment facilities and the
need to improve that, and then we have the agricultural use. In
all three of those areas, we need to concentrate on reducing
the nutrient levels that are suffocating the Bay.
Again, I look forward to your strategies as it relates to
that particular issue.
The second issue is mercury and nitrogen oxides that
Senator Carper has been a strong leader on. Thirty percent of
the problems in regard to nitrogen oxide comes from the air
into the Bay. So it is not just dealing with water quality, it
is also dealing with air quality as we try to develop the right
strategy on improving the quality of the Chesapeake Bay.
Ms. Jackson. Senator, I look forward, if confirmed, to
working with you on those issues.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Boxer is correct in that the courts have been very
helpful in balancing some of the outrageous conduct at the EPA
during the last 8 years. But in a couple of cases, the court
cases have been difficult and problems for the environment.
President-elect Obama has said that he looks forward to signing
legislation that will return the traditional role of the Clean
Water Act. Recent decisions have, on the definition of water in
the United States, dealing with isolated waters and headwater
streams, have effectively eliminated about 500 cases that were
pending before the EPA.
Can we have your assurance that you will be working with us
to correct the Clean Water Act so you have the power you need
to regulate the waters of our Country?
Ms. Jackson. Senator Cardin, if confirmed, I will be happy
to provide advice, counsel, information, whatever I can to this
Committee through its Chair to make sure that the waters of our
Country are adequately protected and enhanced.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. I want to return just very
quickly to the stormwater issue. The National Research Council,
part of the National Academies of Science, released a report
this past October finding that radical changes to the EPA's
stormwater programs are necessary to reverse the degradation of
our Nation's water resources. I just call that to your
attention because I agree with you on your point of letting
science control the decisionmaking here. The clear science is
that we have to regulate runoff issues. And you have the
opportunity to do that once you are confirmed and head up EPA.
I just urge you to be bold in looking at ways that we can deal
nationally with the runoff issue and the damage it is causing
to your environment.
I want to mention one other issue in the time that I have
remaining, and that is lead and lead poisoning. Maryland has
been one of the leading States in the Country in trying to
develop proper strategies to deal with lead poisoning. The work
in Baltimore, at our law school, and some of our medical
facilities are the top in the Country.
I just really want to bring that to your attention. On
residential property, you need to have an effective way to
determine whether there is toxic lead dust, and needs again to
use the best science information that is available in an
objective sense, rather than just having a self-regulated
process that many property owners would prefer to see, rather
than having a more objective Federal policy as it relates to
the lead poisoning. You know the impact it has on our children.
It is preventable and it is widespread and it needs leadership.
I ask for your commitment to find ways in which EPA can play a
constructive role in reducing the number of children in our
Country that have been exposed to lead.
Ms. Jackson. Senator, if confirmed, I would certainly
commit to that. I think that the fact that it is preventable
makes it a tragedy, makes it an environmental issue and often
an environmental justice issue. The President-elect has said
that lead poisoning in children is something that would be
addressed in his Administration. I would begin by reviewing
current EPA regulations and looking toward other ways to
address mitigation of this problem.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
Now, here is what we are going to do. We are going to go
to--I apologize, Senator Merkley, this is what happens, but
very quickly you will be moving up the rolls. We need you to
stay here, you have a wonderful voice. So Senator Carper,
Senator Voinovich, Senator Merkley.
Senator Carper. Thanks very much.
Ms. Jackson, I understand you introduced your husband
earlier. What is his name?
Ms. Jackson. His name is Kenneth.
Senator Carper. I just want to say, take a good look at
your wife. When you bring her home from the inaugural ball,
take a real good look at her. That is the last time you will
her until Christmas.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Make sure your kids have plenty of pictures
of her. Well, they will see her on TV.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I just want to say, we understand that
these are partnerships and that there is a great willingness to
share your wife and your children's mom with our Country. We
are grateful for that. We promise to make sure she gets home
for at least Easter, and maybe even a birthday or two along the
line.
Ms. Jackson, you have been asked by Senator Cardin to come
and visit the Chesapeake Bay with him. I think you have been
invited by Senator Baucus to come to Libby, Montana. Others
have probably invited you to come to their States as well. Last
time, when I was Governor, Carol Browner came to Delaware,
brought her son, came on a wonderful summer day. The idea was
to come to Southern Delaware and then go to the beach. It
rained all day.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. You have great beaches in New Jersey, but
if you make your way to our State, we will be sure to provide
better weather. We hope you will have the opportunity to come
and see us, too.
Senator Boxer spoke earlier about the kind of hazardous air
problems that are facing our schools, too many of our schools,
and staff held up a picture. In that picture, as I recall, we
could see several school buses. And one of the major
contributors to air pollution in and around schools comes from
those school buses that the kids ride to school in, they are
present on the grounds, and they ride home in those at the end
of the day.
Senator Voinovich has been a great leader on this front, as
you may know, along with Senator Clinton, joined by Senator
Inhofe and others on this Committee. We have the opportunity to
do something about it, and some of us have actually called on
the incoming Administration as we put together a recovery
package. We are looking at ways to provide employment
opportunities for people in ways that enhance our
competitiveness as a Nation, cleanup our air and meet other
public purposes.
The idea that we can spend $1 to install diesel emission
reductions equipment, made in America by Corning, in school
buses, we not only provide employment opportunities for the
folks who do the installation in the school buses and trucks,
boats, trains and so forth, we also provide employment
opportunities for people at Corning or other places where they
are actually manufacturing, creating the technology.
And for every $1 that we invest, we get a $13 public health
benefit. Thirteen for one. I don't know of any other investment
that we voted on or made in this Committee where we get a
better public health investment for the dollar. So I would just
ask, just know that we submitted it to the Administration the
transition team. We think this is a good way to stimulate the
economy and have a number of good public purposes in addition.
So I just lay that at your feet.
On climate, I was pleased to see in your written testimony
that you listed reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing
other pollutants as to the incoming President's environmental
initiatives. I would just ask, do you expect the Administration
will be sending us a climate change bill to the Hill, and if
so, will other pollutants from coal plants likely be included?
How do you expect transportation to be included? So that is
like three questions.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator. The EPA, I can speak first
for EPA and then maybe more broadly. As I mentioned in an
earlier answer, the remand of the CAIR Rules back to EPA demand
a look at NOx and SOx. The mercury
decision demands a look at mercury rulemaking by the EPA. And
clearly, the President-elect has, I believe, demonstrated a
commitment to energy and climate change issues that will
involve me and Nancy Sutley and Carol Browner and across
Government an effort to coordinate those issues.
As far as the actual formulation of policy and how, what
will be controlled legislatively versus regulation, I think
that is part of a dialog that we certainly can and must have
with Congress and with others. And I look forward to that. I
think that there is great opportunity in that dialog and what I
would say is, if confirmed as Administrator, I would certainly
not forget the other pollutants as we look toward climate
change and its impacts on our economy. Whether it is diesel air
pollution from buses, and you took away my chance to thank
Senator Voinovich for that when his time comes. But thank you
for your work on DERA and on diesel emissions.
I am a mother of a son with asthma. My youngest son spent
his first Christmas in the hospital with asthma. So I can only
echo what you say about the incredible benefits for the amount
of money. But many of the other pollutants as well, there is
still low-hanging fruit, there is still work that has almost
comparable health benefits if we are smart in how we regulate
them and potentially legislative controls for them.
So I look forward to moving those issues forward in a
thoughtful but aggressive way.
Senator Carper. Good, thank you. Going back to diesel
emissions just for a moment, the good thing about diesel
engines is they last a long time. The bad things about diesel
engines is they last a long time. There are a bunch of them out
there, about 10 million, more than 10 million I am told. And we
have spent, I think in the last year, about $50 million to pass
legislation, and in these settlements, to allow States to use
some of the settlement money for diesel emissions reductions.
But it is very modest compared to the great need that is out
there.
You mentioned the CAIR Rule, let me come back to that just
for a moment. In light of the mercury cases and the CAIR Rule
and other attempts by the current Administration, I believe, to
delay clean air, what would you say are your top two Clean Air
priorities for 2009, if confirmed? I am not asking your top 10.
What might be your top two Clean Air priorities for 2009? And
really, how can we help? We want to help.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you. I would say, again, that the first
thing is to, in keeping with restoring EPA's role as protector
of human health and the environment, and meeting its statutory
mandates to protect human health and the environment, I think
it is incumbent upon the next EPA Administrator to take a hard
look at the regulations that are out there. So that is going to
encompass mercury and the CAIR Rule. And that is going to
encompass our current regulatory web. It is also going to bring
in climate change, because of the Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme
Court question, which begs the question of where we regulate
there.
So not to broaden it too much, but I think you can't pick
one of those issues and say, well, I will only work on this.
Because I think what must be done in order to really restore
the American public's faith in EPA is for EPA to squarely look
at the mandates that are before it and step up to the
regulatory plate and commit early on, as I do now if confirmed,
to address those regulations and to make them sound, to base
them on science and to do it in a way that will withstand legal
challenge. Because certainly the constant sort of back and
forth of the legal challenge doesn't help anybody in terms of
actually achieving cleaner air. It simply prolongs it.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. On the mercury, Senator Carper has been an
extraordinary leader. My understanding is that EPA lost a case
at the District Court level, correct me if I am wrong on this,
Circuit Court, D.C. Court of Appeals. They now are fighting it.
They were told they had to go back and write a new rule. But
they are fighting that. I hope, and you don't need to answer
this now, that you are going to look back at this and say, why
are we fighting it? Because that is exactly what the EPA, they
fight every step of the way against what is doing right. I hope
you have the best advisors there that will tell you, don't
pursue some of these legal cases. They cost a fortune, and they
are hurting people's health.
We are going to go to Senators Voinovich, Merkley,
Klobuchar.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
First of all, I want to thank you for the wonderful visit
that we had in the office. We got into a lot of management
things and I want to let the Chairman know that I have every
confidence that Ms. Jackson has the management capabilities and
the wisdom to do what is necessary to run a good agency, which
is No. 1. You get the right people with the right knowledge and
skills at the right place at the right time, and I urged her to
make sure to let the Office of Budget and Management know that
she has to have the wherewithal in terms of the people who work
there to get her job done.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely.
Senator Voinovich. We talked about a lot of things, the
DERA thing, by the way, that was a team of Voinovich-Carper,
Carper-Voinovich. We have been working on a lot of stuff for a
long time. I hope to continue to do so. They got that done, and
it is a good program. And other programs that you are going to
have to look at in terms of the allocation of your budget.
But I think it is time, and Madam Chairman, you are going
to be hearing more from me on this, because I have 2 years, and
so I want to try and make sure that I get in a good 2 years.
The President has a wonderful idea of having this energy-
climate change czar in Carol Browner, whom I have gotten to
know quite well. I knew her when I was Governor and then when I
became Senator.
But one of the things that I think would be wonderful,
Madam Chairman, is if we could get these folks together in a
room, not necessarily a hearing, but just get together and have
them kind of outline, what is the vision? What are the things
that they want to see done and the issue then is, where do we
put our time on this Committee to get things done.
This is my tenth year. We haven't done very much. The
reason is because we have not been able to harmonize our
environment, our energy, our economy, and now another major
thing that is on the horizon that we are going to hear a whole
lot more about, is our national security. And then we now have
a new thing, and that is, our economy is in terrible shape. So
any time we start doing things, say, like climate change, I
fought that, I told you I fought that bill and we were trying
to come back with another bill. You have to consider what
impact it is going to have on these people.
In my State, 100 communities are being asked to take care
of their combined storm overflow problem. And they are talking
about rates that are 10 percent more each year. They are out of
work. In other words, we are in an interesting environment
today, and one that we hopefully will get out of. But the fact
is, we need to do more planning than ever before, I think, if
we are going to get the job done.
I want to do something about climate change. I think there
is an urgency in climate change. I think it has foreign policy
implications. At the same time, how do you put it together in a
way that you don't kill the economy of our Country?
So Madam Chairman, that is the kind of thing we need input
for. Why don't you just follow up with what Senator Carper
asked, and that is, with a prioritization of what are the
things that you think, at least at this stage, that you need to
focus in on real fast? Because you have the CAIR Rule that is
out, you have the issue of the court case that said that now
you can regulate greenhouse gases. How does that fit in with
our climate change legislation that we have been working on?
Ms. Jackson. Thank you.
First, I used his answer time to thank him, so now I have
to use your answer time to thank Senator Carper for his
extraordinary work on DERA, and on air pollution as well. So
now we are even. And to answer your question and to continue
the prioritization, Senator Carper asked about air. I am going
to broaden it, and be one of those bosses that, if I am
confirmed, maybe EPA staff will say, oh, my. But regulatory,
EPA is a regulatory agency, its stock and trade, and it should
be judged by the caliber of its rules. And it has many, many
rules. So one of the other things I would look forward to doing
is to, looking at the state of rulemaking, not just in the air
program, but in the water program where there are many
questions, on community right to know, where there have been
some questions, and asking ourselves two simple questions: are
they legal, are they sustainable and are they based on science.
And challenging the staff, the professional staff that are
there, to work on those issues. We certainly cannot change
every rule, nor should we. There are good rules on the books as
well. But I think part and parcel of restoring the agency's
stature is for the agency to be able to sit up tall and say,
our rulemaking stands on its face, and it stands up in court.
So I would look forward to doing that. I think that there
are clearly, resources dictate that you cannot do everything at
once. But if we look at the rules that are before us legally on
the air side, we have some mandates on the water side. But we
look as a whole at the agency and how we do our regulatory
process, I think that the agency will be better and stronger
for it.
Senator Voinovich. Well, in the process of the regulation,
I think it has to be also looked at in terms of just what the
reality is of the regulation. One of my pet peeves for years is
we are in Region 5. I have heard business after business say
that, I would rather be in Region 3 or I would rather be in
some other region, because they implement the rules differently
in those regions than they do in Region 5. In other words,
where is the consistency? It is just a management thing. But
are they consistent in terms of the training, in terms of what
are you doing in one area and are you being consistent there?
It is another issue that I think you should look at.
And then look at some of the other things that are around
that impact on your well-being. One of the jurisdictions we
have is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And how does nuclear
power impact on greenhouse emissions? It may not be in EPA's
ball game, but it is. That is why I am saying, if Carol would
get everybody together and say, hey, in this climate
legislation we had, it requires or anticipates, EPA says, 150
new nuclear power plants being built by 2050. Well, nuclear
power contributes 70 percent of the emissions-free energy in
this Country. And it has to be part of all of the things that
we are doing.
I think the problem here, to a degree, is that we have too
many silos. I was listening to Jack Lew, who is going to go
over to the Department of State, talk about the fact that you
have to look at the big picture, how does all of this stuff fit
together? And as I told you in my office, and I will finish
real quick, I was the mayor of the city of Cleveland. We had 20
percent unemployment. The Federal Government was helping us
with an emergency jobs bill, so that we could have a public
works program, on the one hand, then I have the EPA in there
working, shutting places down. And I thought to myself, do
these people ever talk to each other? And I know you have a
regulatory job.
But there seems to me to be a bigger picture here that we
ought to be looking at if we are going to make the progress
that we would like to see made here in this Country, for our
environment, for our energy, for our economy and our national
defense.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator. I will remember
environment, economy, energy and security. I will take that
back with me, thank you.
Senator Boxer. I think Senator Voinovich makes a good
point. Of course, for me, it is not as complicated as it
sounds, because you have a clear mission to protect the health
of the people. That is what it is. So for me, you are a
professional, you have scientists. For me, that is it.
And what I am happy about is that when Senators on both
sides of the aisle ask you about some of the issues they really
care deeply about, which fit into that, you have said yes. So
already, I think, Senator Voinovich, we have a commitment for
Senator Inhofe to get help on Tar Creek, for Senator Baucus to
get help. When I say, they, the people in Libby, Montana, the
toxic coal ash, the toxic air in the schools, the waiver
review, clean water, the water runoff problem, particularly in
places like Chesapeake, diesel engine cleanup, working with us
on that. And from Senator Whitehouse, a review of these
advisory boards that are laden with folks that some believe
have a special interest.
Senator Voinovich. Madam Chairman?
Senator Boxer. If I could just finish, and then I will call
on you.
For me, the last thing I want to do is dictate what you are
supposed to do. I like the idea of a conversation and we will
do briefings. We will, which are not hearings, they are
briefings, conversations. I love that idea. Because I think
bringing Carol Browner in, bringing you in, bringing Nancy
Sutley in, you all have your responsibilities statutorily into
the law. I think it would be a very good thing. Because
President-elect Obama has, I would say, re-ordered the system
here by bringing in a Carol Browner, who used to be the head of
EPA, who understands it, and by I think elevating, and if I
just might say it, with the people he has chosen, elevating in
importance the environment.
I think it would be good to have that conversation, so I
would like to commit, Senator Voinovich, we will do a briefing,
and we will have the top level Obama people there. Because I
think this give and take that we have today shouldn't just be a
one-time only thing.
Senator Voinovich. Right. But the point I am making is it
is like the Great Lakes. We finally have a comprehensive plan
for restoration of the Great Lakes. But Madam Chairman, Army
Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife, NOAA, Department of
State, Department of Transportation, USDA, all of these
agencies have something to do with restoring the Great Lakes.
It seems to me that when we are doing our work, we ought to
think about, how do some of these other things impact on what
we are trying to accomplish, and maybe get those agencies to
maybe work better together to move the agenda forward and
better utilize their dollars.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely. I think we have to do that,
otherwise we have paralysis. I think this, we don't have, we
can bring the Corps in here, we have jurisdiction, that is a
good thing. So I think we do face these uphill climbs when we
have something ready to go. And I stand ready to help you on
cutting through some of that, on the Great Lakes in particular.
Let's get it done, let's make a commitment to get it done.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. So we will.
OK, and Senator Merkley, the most patient human being on
the Committee today, followed by Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Jackson, I wanted to get your understanding of how
serious the buildup of CO2 is in the atmosphere and
what happens if we continue at the current pace of increased
CO2 50 years from now.
Ms. Jackson. Senator, we know that man-made emissions are
contributing to climate change on our globe. And we know that
the conditions are worsening, that time is not our friend, it
is our enemy in this matter. CO2 lasts in our
atmosphere for decades, sometimes longer.
There is a need to act, there is a need to act, I believe,
for our Country with science in front of us. Obviously with the
law as our guide. And there is a need to do it not only for our
Country but in order to show the leadership that the world has
been waiting for on that issue. There are technologies that
America can help to develop and bring to operation. There are
renewable energy mandates in some States, but there is an
opportunity for an incredible investment in renewables that
makes sense, and energy efficiency.
So in my mind, the peril of inaction is different for
different areas of the Country and quite different for
different areas of the world. Science tells us that those areas
of the world that have the least ability to defend themselves
and the least money will be hardest hit by the ravages of
climate change. A State like mine that is a coastal State, and
yours as well, could be particularly hard hit.
Senator Merkley. I will just share with you a couple of
numbers that I have carried with me in thinking about this. One
is that everything we are seeing change in the world is from a
one degree centigrade change in temperature, just a one degree
change. It is my understanding that the best scientific
consensus is that by the time a small child grows up to be my
age, and I am 52, so 50 years from now, that if we continue on
the current course of carbon buildup and other global warming
gases, the temperature of the planet could well go up more than
five degrees, which is more than catching a slight fever. It is
a very, very catastrophic state. And 50 years is such a brief
period. This is why these numbers helped me understand why this
is so important.
I just picture that small child, and that we have one
lifetime, basically to address this.
An issue in Oregon and in our ports and the Columbia River
is invasive species from ballast water. In October 2008, there
was a conversation in which the Oregon ballast water manager
said, the Feds have delayed time and time again coming up with
proposals. This was specifically related to trying to diminish
invasive species. And we have something like 30 species in the
lower Columbia River that have come from ballast water, several
number of species in the Coos Bay.
Can we anticipate a collaborative approach in tackling this
problem?
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator. If I am confirmed, I would
bring together the scientists and regulators from EPA's water
program. It is, indeed, invasive species are a huge problem in
your bay and also in the Great Lakes. I have heard from several
people about the impact on shipping with respect to these
invasives. And I would be happy to sit with you and work with
you cooperatively and re-look at EPA's current regulatory
posture with respect to ballast water and its impact with
respect to invasive species.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. That would be most appreciated.
We have an area north of Klamath Falls called Northridge
Estates, 750 acres that was affected by 1,500 tons of asbestos.
And in 2007, just over a year ago, the EPA outreach
coordinator, Judy Smith, said the emergency cleanup ``was a
Band-Aid when surgery was needed.'' Can we anticipate more than
Band-Aids in assisting us in taking on the major toxic
pollution sites like the Northridge Estates?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Senator, if I am confirmed, you can. I
don't know the particulars of that site. I certainly think that
if an EPA employee says we are just beginning, clearly she
would know that. I would need to look into it, but I would be
happy to do that.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. That would be very helpful.
Turning to tailpipe emissions, in December 2007, EPA
rejected the California request. This was certainly of concern
to Oregon, because we had tied ourselves, like so many other
States, to California. It was specifically to cut greenhouse
gases and tailpipe emissions by 30 percent by 2016. It is my
understanding that the EPA staff concluded that this waiver was
appropriate under the law, but it was reversed at the highest
levels of EPA for political purposes.
Can we count on you to work hard with your staff to
implement the law as it is written, and in this issue in
particular, can we get your assistance in supporting the
California tailpipe standards?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, I will commit again, recommit that I
will review the waiver decision if I am confirmed, very, very
aggressively, very soon after confirmation and taking the job.
And I will let science be the guide in making the
determination, and I will let the rule of law, and the law, I
think not only EPA scientists but EPA lawyers, have looked at
the issue and had a history of looking at waiver requests from
California.
So while I wouldn't prejudge it, I would commit to you that
those are the two sources I would look at in making a
determination.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
There is one more area I just want to draw to your
attention, and that is the Hanford Nuclear Reservation on the
Columbia River. It has a growing radioactive plume affecting
the river. We have had a tremendously difficult time getting
the funding necessary to get ancient nuclear radioactive
products that were part of that industry from numerous nuclear
plants that were there, out of single tanks, into double
shells, out of double shells into permanent storage, getting
the plant built that will put these materials into glass
noodles for a long time, basically isolate them safely for the
future. We really would appreciate an aggressive and bold help
on Hanford.
Ms. Jackson. Senator, if confirmed, I am happy to re-look
at and redouble our efforts at cleanup. For so many sites, it
comes down to a question of resources, money and authority. I
think both are necessary to ensure adequate cleanup of sites.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Senator Merkley, it was worth the wait to
hear you talk about the California waiver. When you say science
and the rule of law, it sounds funny that it would be such
music to our ears. Because for 8 years, a lot of us don't
believe there was science or the rule of law involved in these
decisions at EPA.
Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
thank you, Ms. Jackson. I know it has been a long morning. You
must be getting hungry. So I will try to keep this short.
I started out my opening statement by talking about just my
frustration with what the Chairwoman just talked about, this
lack of transparency and this literally hiding of evidence,
which as a former prosecutor, I just couldn't believe. One of
my worst memories of this time period was sitting out there
secretly reading that endangerment finding. I know that Senator
Whitehouse asked you some questions along this line, but could
you talk a little about, well, one just specifically, can you
make that endangerment finding public, so everyone can see it?
Maybe you will be writing your own, I don't know.
But then second, just ideas to restore not just the faith
of the public in the agency, but more transparency?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, the finding on endangerment has not
been made. I would expect, I would certainly need to consult
with lawyers, because I am not one. But I would expect in doing
that, in fulfilling a commitment to move toward making that
finding, we would be reviewing the background and information
that has been prepared, and then making it public as part of
the record. I would certainly want to check on that. But that
is generally the way those things are done.
As far as transparency, the President-elect has made it
clear that transparency, he has an unprecedented level of
commitment to transparency in Government, and to opening up the
doors of Government and Government decisionmaking. So if I am
confirmed, I would certainly be proud to uphold that commitment
on the President-elect's part and to make sure that it is
translated at EPA. I am certain he will be doing things at the
White House level. But I would certainly, as the EPA
Administrator, then make sure that the staff understand the
commitment to transparency as well, so that it doesn't just
guide my actions, but that it guides their action as well.
Because they also have an awesome responsibility as employees
of the agency.
Senator Klobuchar. That is why I appreciate your management
experience that some of the other Senators were referring to.
Because I think you understand it is not just one person, it is
changing the culture of an agency, where some people probably
wanted to come out with things and they haven't been able to.
On the climate change legislation that we did last year,
specifically the first title was the greenhouse gas registry
that I was pushing for. I think we talked about that yesterday
when you and I talked. The EPA has a rulemaking going on, there
was supposed to be a rule issued. This is this notion that we
need a carbon counter, like a calorie counter, that it
shouldn't be that hard, that we are never going to be able to
enact cap and trade if we don't have some way to measure what
the carbon emissions are. And we were blocked with this on the
floor, States have, I think 30 some States have had to come
together to form their own registry, which I just think is sort
of a pathetic example of how the Federal Government is lagging
behind, when you have the majority of the States having to form
their own.
Could you talk about your commitment to getting that
started immediately, so we can get that in place as we move
forward on climate change?
Ms. Jackson. EPA, Senator, has already received funding to
begin the process of developing a registry. It simply hasn't
gotten the rules out the door. And the time lag is not good.
Because we don't know where we are. So it is very hard to track
where we are going. Many industries have already started to do
it for themselves. Business already wants to know what they are
emitting so they can know what impact carbon regulation is
going to have on them.
So my commitment, if confirmed, would be to jump start that
rulemaking. Because it is certainly an important step, not the
only one, but an important step to baselining and making sure
that we know where we are going with respect to the science of
CO2.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Also in my opening I talked a lot about this need to start
viewing the EPA work also positively in terms of how we can
work hand in hand with job creation in the energy area through
climate change policy and other things. One example of that
that I want to call to your attention, biofuels, I still
believe are at their infancy, whether we move toward LG or
prairie grass and switch grass. There is a guy, the Chairwoman
has heard me tell this story before, in southern Minnesota who
brings out his laptop all the time and shows me how he can
solve our entire dependency on foreign oil by growing switch
grass on highway medians. And I always think, as my husband and
I drive down the Minnesota highways, how dangerous it would be
to harvest it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. But there are plans out there and I
think people have felt stymied in their advancement. With the
biofuels, as I say, it is at its infancy, it clearly can move
toward more cellulosic. Our State is very interested in doing
that.
But right now, industry is rather fragile. I for one
believe we shouldn't be pulling the rug out from under it. And
one of the things that Senator Thune and I and others have been
pushing for and the EPA is considering this, there is a
rulemaking going on with blends. I think we have come to be
convinced that the answer may not just be E85, it may be just
lower level blends in all of our fuel.
There is a rulemaking going on for E15 and E20, I think,
which will take quite a while. One of the things that we have
asked for is whether the EPA could look at, as you look at
making rules easier to create more jobs, is a short-term
increase in the level of the ethanol blends, say to E11 or E12.
It sounds small, but it could actually be very helpful to the
biofuels.
So if you could look at this, I would really appreciate
that. It is something we have been meeting with the auto makers
on, and it doesn't appear, studies from the University of
Minnesota have shown that a slight increase wouldn't do
anything to the engine. But again, this kind of common sense
thought about jobs and environmental regulation I think would
be helpful.
I don't know if you want to comment on the biofuels at all.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator. I like the phrasing of
short-term, and then there is clearly, when there is short-
term, there is also long-term. So I am happy, if confirmed, to
sit with you and explore the issue of short-term changes in
ethanol or biofuels and what that means. But over the longer
term, EPA has another responsibility, though, and that is to
look at the life cycle of fuels in their development, and the
life cycle analysis thereof. I think that is an important role,
and one that EPA scientists can add a lot to the discussion on.
So in addition to the short-term questions, I hope we can
work together, if I am confirmed, to look at the longer term
issues that are before EPA, and the impacts, however indirect,
that you say common sense, I think there will need to be a look
at indirect impacts. But one that is guided by what we can
actually measure and what we know and what the science says we
can determine.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Again, I just want to
reiterate, we have had a big bipartisan effort in our State on
renewable fuels and alternative energy. And as a result, we
have huge political support for it across the lines. We have
the most aggressive renewable electricity standard in the
Country, 25 percent by 2025, with Xcel agreeing to 30 percent.
We have the biofuels, we are on the front end of that. And the
people in our rural areas have seen the positives of this, and
that is why when you talk about a green economy to them, it is
nothing foreign. They know that the growing area in our State
right now where they are actually looking for employees is the
Fargo-Moorhead area in large part because of the wind turbine
industry up there.
So again, I think the more we can push this, we not only
will get political support for climate change, but we will also
add jobs to our economy. And you have a big job, but I know you
can do it. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
So I want to say what the rules are. Senator Udall is back
for his first round of questions, and I have gotten clearance
from the minority side that if, that people have 10 minutes to
come back if they want to do a second round. I know Senator
Carper and I are going to do a second round. So if they are not
here by 25 after-ish, around that time, then no second round.
We will be completing this and then we will have Nancy Sutley
come forward. Is that all right? Unanimous consent request to
go that way.
OK. So Senator Udall, you are recognized for 7 minutes.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair. And this is, I think
you have covered a lot of ground, Ms. Jackson, no doubt about
it. I haven't been here the entire time, but I have been in and
out of my office and seen some of it, so I am impressed with
the breadth of your knowledge.
One of the things that you and I talked about was uranium
mining, and uranium mining waste on the Navajo Reservation and
on the Colorado Plateau. It is a real tragedy and disaster out
there. The Chair may be interested, the L.A. Times, within the
last year did a four- or five-part series on what had happened.
Henry Waxman did hearings over in the House. And growing out of
those hearings, because there was a great deal of concern as to
the waste that was there and kids playing on the waste and the
problems that communities were having and that the uranium
tailings and mining waste wasn't being cleaned up.
So five Federal agencies and the Navajo Nation got together
and started working on a plan to try to move forward
aggressively cleaning up. And I know that President-elect Obama
is going to make a priority, I think, out of cleaning up
hazardous waste sites. I am sure that is one of the reasons he
picked you, because you have a real expertise.
And these particular waste sites I am talking about on the
Navajo Reservation really involve issue environmental justice
and minority communities. The Navajo Reservation has an
unemployment rate of about 50 percent, and has had for a long
time. So there are serious problems out there. I noticed that
Senator Carper and Senator Cardin and others were talking about
you visiting places. This is a place that I think that coming
out West, and there are a lot of things to see, I might propose
to you at some point to come out and see this, because I think
you would really be moved to get something done here for the,
it is the largest land mass and largest Indian tribe in the
Nation.
So my question is one, have you been apprised of this
situation, do you know about EPA's involvement in this project
to move forward? And under your direction, will EPA embrace
this initiative and lead in collaboration with the Navajo
Nation and the Federal agencies to clean up this tragedy and
disaster that is there?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, I am certainly aware of it. You made
me aware of it, and then I did a little bit of homework,
because I knew it was coming. And it certainly is, the scope of
mining sites, but this one in particular is such that a
partnership is exactly what is needed. The good news here is
that the parties involved recognize the need to double their
efforts and triple and quadruple them by getting together.
I would be happy, if confirmed, to first visit, to look at
the situation, but to try to find those ways and those areas
where EPA can move to lead and to be aggressive in making sure
that the partnership is not the end of the story, but the very
beginning of the story. Certainly the scope of the problem is
such that progress will need to be incremental and over long
periods of time. But I would look forward to working with you
on that.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
We very much appreciate that cooperation. I think the
Navajo Nation and its leaders will be very heartened to hear
about your testimony today. And one of the things I have always
thought about the EPA is that you are in the position, knowing
and understanding and being in contact with all these hazardous
waste situations, to be able to make recommendations to us. So
I hope you will be very aggressive about telling us where you
think there are the holes, the loopholes in the law that need
to be filled.
The Chairwoman had a fantastic set of hearings here on coal
ash and coal, which you may have been briefed on and followed.
This once again is a situation where you have industry and
Government accumulating large amounts of waste and really, in
many cases, not handling it responsibly and polluting
groundwater. You are really in a position to tell us where to
plug these holes. And we are going to be very aggressive on our
side to research that and I think work with you in a
collaborative way on this.
So I very much appreciate your testimony today and your
commitment to the public health and human health and the
environment. I think it is great that President-elect Obama is
proceeding and has put your nomination forward, a career person
who has worked in this area. I have always thought the EPA is a
very complicated agency, it has so much science to it. With
your experience there and your experience in New Jersey, I
think you bring the kind of experience that we need in that
job.
So thank you for your testimony today. I may or may not
participate in a second round.
Senator Carper, I think he was kidding you. I noticed there
was a little shock about your husband not seeing you. I think
he was kidding you about how long you were going to be away. I
want you to make sure you spend time with those kids, because I
have found that the biggest advocates are the young people.
They are interacting with you, mom, you are in charge of this.
And they are going to be reminding you.
So I hope she has some time to spend with her husband and
her children. Thank you very much.
Senator Carper [presiding]. Before Senator Udall leaves,
let me just say, I mentioned we would try to have her home at
least by Easter. I think Valentine's Day is probably
negotiable. We will work on that, too.
Listening to all these places people want you to come and
visit, I don't know if you get to keep your frequent flyer
miles, but I hope that is part of the deal.
Ms. Jackson. I don't think I do.
Senator Carper. I want to go back, I want to talk a little
bit more on mercury, but also before I do that, as one who
comes from a downwind State, as we are in Delaware, let me just
ask, do you believe the CAIR Rule, which has been knocked down
and then really sort of reinstated for a while, but do you
believe the CAIR Rule really goes far enough to help States
meet our ambient air quality standards?
Ms. Jackson. New Jersey was on record when I was
commissioner as believing that the CAIR Rule, that more could
be done under the auspices of the CAIR Rule to address our
upwind contamination. The models we had working through the OTC
and the scientists there showed that several States would still
have attainment problems and that CAIR, stronger regulation
could help.
That said, I would certainly not presume, even if
confirmed, to know, to be the expert on the regulation. What I
would like to do is turn back and use the opportunity given to
us by the court to look at that rule and to determine whether
or not there is additional strengthening that could be done on
it.
Again, I think that can be done with an eye toward the
extraordinary benefit that would accrue from giving emitters,
especially utilities, a clear understanding of what the game
plan will be, what the requirement will be upon them. So it is
one of the reasons that I believe that re-looking at that rule
early on is so important.
Senator Carper. When you were good enough to visit with me
this past week, one of the things we talked about was with the
CAIR Rule, is there a need for some further regulatory fix, is
there a possibility of some legislative fix, could it be a
combination of both. Any thoughts in that regard for us?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Senator. What I said probably needs to
stand, which is, we would want to make sure in dealing with the
science staff and the regulators that any regulation would be
strong enough to withhold any legal challenge. I would like to
return to the day when EPA's record of putting out rules and
having them withstand is quite strong. That means that we would
consult with the agencies' attorneys as well.
I don't know right now whether there might be additional
statutory authority needed. But that is not to say that it
wouldn't potentially be helpful.
Senator Carper. All right. One last thing I want to go back
to. I want to follow up on the mercury rule discussion that we
had a bit earlier. As I think you know, mercury reductions from
power plants, especially, is a priority for me. You were
obviously a leader in mercury reductions in New Jersey.
Could you just tell us briefly what you all put in place
there with respect to mercury?
Ms. Jackson. Well, you know, the case on mercury in New
Jersey v. EPA, basically the courts found that the regulatory
scheme that EPA had put forward in its rule really didn't
comport with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. So that is
more about rule of law than it is about science. That said,
mercury is an extraordinarily important contaminant, not just
because of the air emissions, but the fact that it deposits and
that it can bioaccumulate and you can have localized hot spots
of mercury.
And so I think in fashioning and beginning to propose a
regulatory scheme and to replace the current one that the court
has mandated EPA do, I think those considerations need to be
kept in mind, that there needs to be effective treatment or
removal of mercury from air emissions, and that local impacts,
potential for localized impacts and then the bioaccumulation up
the food chain and all the way up to human health needs to be
looked at as well.
Senator Carper. I hope that EPA drops the mercury rule
case, and does not appeal it further. Have you had a chance to
think back on this with respect to going back to the D.C.
District Court?
Ms. Jackson. Well, if I am confirmed, I am going to talk to
the agency lawyers, and we are going to do that in the context
of looking at what the decision says. I have already consulted
with the agency's ethics office to make sure that, since that
case was captioned New Jersey v. EPA, I am able to be involved
there. And they have indicated that they have reviewed it and
they don't have a problem with it.
So I would welcome the opportunity to embrace it and to
look at the case on its legal merits, but to do it with an eye
toward what makes sense from a regulatory perspective as well.
Senator Carper. All right. Well, while we wait for Chairman
Boxer to return and ask one last series of questions, is there
anything that you had hoped would be asked today that was not
asked?
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. It is not often that we give a witness this
kind of opportunity. So you might just want to pull out your
bat and take a good swing at it.
Ms. Jackson. Do I have a clock, or do you just want me to
go on forever?
I am hungry, so I will only say that if confirmed, I will
continue to do that which I have always prided myself on, which
is to, as commissioner, I am proud of my record there. We
tackled some pretty tough problems. I would never claim that we
were perfect or we had a perfect record, but we made progress.
I believe that New Jersey's environment is better off for my
tenure there. And that is, that makes me very, very proud.
I want to be able, if confirmed, to say that as well about
my tenure at EPA, that the Country's environment is better off
for my having been there. I will take that responsibility
extraordinarily seriously. I will hold my record up in New
Jersey with pride. I know that there have been some who, in my
mind, have been unfair about the characterization of it. Again,
I don't think it was perfect. But I do want people to know, as
I sit here and ask for confirmation, that I would take very
seriously the opportunity to protect human health and the
environment for the people of this Country.
Senator Carper. Great. I would say in closing, again, our
thanks to you for your willingness to serve. And to your
husband, Mr. Jackson. A number of years ago, when former
President Bush nominated Elizabeth Dole to serve in his
cabinet, she was joined at the witness stand at her
confirmation hearing by her husband, then Senator Robert Dole.
And as he introduced his wife, Elizabeth, he said to his
colleagues, he said these words, ``I regret that I have but one
wife to give for my Country.'' In that spirit, I yield to
Senator Boxer.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Jackson. One wife is enough, Senator.
Senator Boxer [presiding]. Yes, we would like to keep it
that way. Speaking as someone who has been married for--I have
lost track--48 years.
Ms. Jackson. Congratulations.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I have for my second round, I will call it the lightning
round----
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer [continuing]. A number of questions which I
think for the most part you could say yes or no to, unless you
want to elaborate. I want to get these things on the record.
The first one is about perchlorate. Perchlorate is used to
make rocket fuel. When it gets into drinking water, this toxic
chemical can interfere with the thyroid and affect hormone
systems, which control the way the body develops. Infants and
pregnant women are especially vulnerable to perchlorate. It has
contaminated drinking water supplies across the Country.
California, my State, has 290 water sources with at least 4
parts per billion of perchlorate.
The GAO found in 2005 that nearly 400 sites in 35 States
had perchlorate. In 2006, the CDC found widespread human
exposure to perchlorate in the U.S. And they found that many
women who were exposed to perchlorate in drinking water had
significant changes in thyroid hormone levels.
A 2008 FDA study found perchlorate in 74 percent of all
foods tested, including baby food. Yet, EPA recently refused to
regulate perchlorate. We had quite a to-do over here in that
hearing. And they won't regulate it in drinking water, and they
sent the issue back to the National Academy of Sciences.
Now, again, delay, delay, delay. We have had years of it
and we need action.
Do you commit to us to immediately review this failure to
establish a drinking water standard for perchlorate and act to
address the threat to pregnant women and children caused by
this dangerous toxin?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson, my staff has prepared a report on the tools
available under the Clean Air Act to immediately reduce global
warming pollution. One of the things that people don't seem to
know is without passing any more legislation, under the Clean
Air Act, we can begin now. I will provide that report to you on
steps you could take. By the way, we got this from a lot of
whistleblowers within EPA who just couldn't speak out. But they
did give us this information.
Do you commit to use the tools as provided in the Clean Air
Act to address global warming pollution, understanding that we
could perfect those tools in legislation?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Madam Chair. Not knowing what is in the
report, certainly I would say that I would look forward to
working with EPA's staff openly to discuss their views on ways
that we can use the Clean Air Act.
Senator Boxer. Excellent. We look forward to getting you
that report.
This next question is on Superfund, human exposure to
Superfund. There are 1,255 Superfund sites in the Nation. These
sites have dangerous chemicals such as lead, mercury, benzene
that cause cancer, harm the nervous system and damage cognitive
thinking ability. And children, again, are especially at risk.
One of the things I often say, children are not little adults.
They are growing, they are changing, and we need to treat them
differently.
Currently, EPA knows of 92 Superfund sites where human
exposure is out of control, their words, and 175 sites where
there is insufficient information to determine if human
exposure is under control. This is intolerable not only to me,
but to many in the Senate.
Do you commit to develop a plan to control such exposures
and get needed data in your first 3 months as Administrator?
Ms. Jackson. Certainly, Madam Chairman. The only caveat I
would have is that I would want to ensure that in those cases
where resources are an issue, because I simply don't know the
details of these sites, that we cannot spend money we do not
have. The lack of ability to fund actual cleanups of sites has
resulted in slowdown.
Senator Boxer. Well, let me assure you, I agree. I am not
asking you to commit to cleaning them up unless you have the
money. But what I want from you is an honest answer as to what
do we need to clean up these sites where the waste is out of
control. It is our job to get you the money. You can't do that,
and is going to be President-elect Obama, it is going to be
priority of his, hopefully, to do so. But I am not asking you
to say, we will cleanup all of these sites. What I am asking
you is will you please give us a commitment to develop a plan
to control those exposures at these sites that EPA says human
exposure is not under control, the 92 sites.
Ms. Jackson. Yes.
Senator Boxer. OK. And on pesticide testing, I believe very
strongly that EPA should do everything in its power to protect
children from dangerous exposure to toxic pesticides.
Pesticides are designed to kill or harm living creatures.
Children are especially at risk from exposure to such
substances.
Now, in my State, with a huge agriculture industry, one of
the biggest, the biggest probably in the Country, and I work
with them. Because they need to be able to control the pests.
But there are ways to do it that are less harmful. In 2005, I
helped to pass a law that banned intentional pesticide exposure
studies on pregnant women and children, and required--these are
intentional studies using women and children as the subjects,
OK? We talked a little bit about the one that Mr. Johnson was
so proud of, in Jacksonville, Florida, with the poor people,
giving them free things to entice them to let their kids crawl
around where pesticide was sprayed. We talked about that. And
we finally passed this legislation and we said, we need EPA to
enact rules, using the highest standards of ethical protections
in pesticide studies.
Now, the rules that they promulgated, not a surprise, do
not comply with the law. EPA's regulations have been challenged
in a lawsuit, another one, because of that. And I filed an
amicus brief in this proceeding.
Do I have your commitment that EPA will follow the letter
of the law that Congress enacted to protect people from
intentional testing? Will you work with the Committee to ensure
that EPA's pesticide testing regulations comply with the law?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, if confirmed, absolutely. EPA will follow
the law in all cases, but especially in this one. I would be
happy to work with the Committee.
Senator Boxer. OK. We are getting down to the very end, you
will be happy to know.
This is about the Office of Children's Health. They have
been undercut and underfunded in their mission to protect
children's health. I have an ongoing Government Accountability
Office investigation into the use and management of this
office.
As Administrator, will you make certain that this office,
the Office of Children's Health, has strong leadership, and
that the office proactively works to ensure that other EPA
programs and activities effectively protect children's health
with the full authority of the Office of the Administrator
behind it?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Madam Chairman. That would be one of the
things I would be very proud to do.
Senator Boxer. Well, that is good. Now we are down to two
more. Now, you have so many supporters in such places as the
Sierra Club and community leaders. You also have a couple of
detractors, one, the Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility. And I told you I was going to ask you this
question, because we don't want to end the hearing without your
having a chance to clear the record on what they have said.
How do you respond to the allegations from them? They say
you are not a strong enough protector of the public health. And
could you address the following: the Kiddie College
controversy, your views on polluters self-certifying that
property is clean, and New Jersey's failure to enact the State
perchlorate drinking water standard? If you could respond to
those, I would appreciate it.
Ms. Jackson. Certainly. And Madam Chairman, I appreciate
the opportunity to do so. I will take them in order, and I may
forget one in between, so remind me of the order.
Kiddie College I remember was first. Kiddie College was a
tragedy. It was, as we discussed, a determination that a child
care center was operating in what was a former thermometer
factory, and that the levels of mercury in the air, the vapor
in the air, caused elevated mercury levels in children's blood.
There are many things that were done in response to that
determination, including shutting down the facility. The
facility now no longer is a child care center. I think it was
recently knocked down.
But the criticism that I would like to address here is the
idea that DEP, and particularly me, did not tell people what we
knew when we knew it. I first will address myself. Personally,
the day I found out that there was such a thing as a Kiddie
College that had mercury results, which is the first time I
heard the words Kiddie College, was the day that the owner was
notified to move those children out. And the local health
department and the mayor and the police.
That said, it is clear from the chronology that the first
time a DEP employee drove by that site was months before. And
the time period in between the drive-by and seeing a building
where he expected to see a factory, and the actual
determination that without a doubt, this building was the
former factory, is a period that, in hindsight, in retrospect,
I wish had never occurred. No parent should have to wonder
about the months in between a suspicion and a reality.
And I think that that work was well-intentioned. I think
the employees at DEP did a job but could have done even better
by erring on the side of just alerting someone or making a
phone call. That said, I know that in hindsight, we all wish
things had turned out differently. And that is really what I
would say to the parents and I have said personally to people
about Kiddie College.
I know you asked about perchlorate, so I will do that one,
and then remind me of what the third one was.
Senator Boxer. The third one was your views on polluters
self-certifying that property is clean.
Ms. Jackson. So I will do perchlorate. In the State of New
Jersey, before I became commissioner, the State of New Jersey
has an advisory board that advises it on and does the science
to help it determine what MCLs to promulgate. That advisory
board, I think in 2005, came out with a level of five parts per
billion for perchlorate. The part of what has been said and
alleged that is not true is, it is true that the State MCL is
just now going to be proposed, probably this month. But New
Jersey has been acting and regulating and enforcing a cleanup
standard of five parts per billion all the while.
So when we prioritize, as managers often have to, we looked
at the work in front of our employees, and this has been a time
of shrinking budgets, the entire time I have been commissioner,
and we determined that we would do some other regulations
first. So it is true that the reg is not out. It is not true
that we have not been using that level for quite some time in
New Jersey, and that we take quite seriously our requirement to
look at perchlorate and its potential impacts on citizens and
drinking water.
The last is the hazardous waste site cleanup program in
general. In order to answer the questions about consultants, I
need to take one step back and remind this Committee that
Kiddie College was the tip of an iceberg. I committed in
testimony before our State legislature when it happened that
the program was broken, that New Jersey's program for cleaning
up toxic waste sites, and there are over 20,000 of them now in
New Jersey, was broken. And I committed to do a number of
things to address that, and not to run away from that, but to
try to address it.
And I am proud of several things. First is that when I was
commissioner, we embarked upon and completed a new Internet
listing of sites and information about sites, so that
communities would have more information than they have ever had
about sites that are located near them. We also, I committed to
putting in place a prioritization scheme for sites, so that the
worst sites would get addressed first. And we did that. It is
not quite done yet, so it is late. But it is late because it
relies on GPS technology, and for the first time ever, site-
specific pollution data. So we marry those two in assessing
risks. So it has taken longer than I would like, but I think it
is aggressive.
We strengthened the enforcement rules for sites and we
changed the way we recover costs, so that we now recover about
$20 million of past costs every year in that program that can
be used to clean up other sites. And we embarked on an 18-month
plus, because the process is still ongoing, process to try to
fix what is a broken program.
One of the options that I did look at and do believe has
real merit in that State is certifying consultants to ensure
that they do quality work. And in exchange for that
certification, looking at those sites where it might make sense
to pull back DEP oversight to save those resources for more
complex sites. I don't believe that that process really has
merit at the Federal level, because of the differences in the
way New Jersey manages its program versus the Federal program.
And indeed, the future of that program is still in doubt,
because the State legislature is now considering legislation as
to how it wants to fix the site.
Senator Boxer. So if I could say, what you are saying is,
you don't anticipate and you are not at all expecting to
utilize consultants to certify that Superfund sites, for
example, or brownfields are clean? You are going to use the
scientists----
Ms. Jackson. That we have at the agency. The current
process uses consultants quite differently at EPA, and I see no
reason to change that.
Senator Boxer. OK. I think that is important.
Then for my last question, and then we are going to move to
Nancy Sutley, after thanking you, chromium-6 is a heavy metal
that has contaminated drinking water supplies in California.
Everyone remembers Erin Brockovich, who fought for the people
who drank water contaminated with chromium-6. A 2008 study by
the National Toxicology Program shows that chromium-6 can cause
cancer when ingested. In 2002, EPA had delayed deciding whether
to toughen chromium drinking water standards until the recent
study was finished.
Will you commit to address the threat posed by chromium-6
through the drinking water laws as quickly as possible?
Ms. Jackson. The drinking water laws, Madam Chairman, yes.
To address it within the authority we already have, absolutely.
Senator Boxer. The authorities that you already have. What
is starting to happen here is because of EPA's lack of a record
in making these, setting these standards, we have gone off and
started to outlaw certain toxics and certain chemicals. We all
agree it is not the way to go, to outlaw phthalates, for
example, with an actual law, chemical by chemical. And then I
have bills to set standards for chromium, that is not the way
to go.
We want you to do this work. We don't want to put it into
the political realm. We want to keep it in your realm, your
work. So that is why I have asked you the series of questions
about chromium-6 and perchlorate and these other things,
because we don't want to start having to vote pollutant after
pollutant, have to reset the standard and argue back and forth.
It is not the right way to go. That is the reason we have
asked.
So under the Safe Drinking Water Act, you are going to look
at chromium-6?
Ms. Jackson. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Now, as my staff has discussed with you, follow up
questions will be sent to you later today. Although I think you
really covered 98 percent of the questions. And tomorrow
morning, your responses are due. So that is why--I am sorry,
your responses are due by noon Friday morning.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. We will send them to you today and they are
due by Friday. I was going to say, now I know why your husband
is not going to see you that much, if we gave you overnight.
But we give you a couple of days.
The reason we are pushing this is because we want to get
this confirmation done. We are actually going to do it by
discharge petition, because we don't really have, if the press
is interested, we don't yet have our Committee set up. We have
colleagues who can't vote quite yet. We expect it momentarily.
And I must thank Senator Inhofe and my Republican
colleagues for allowing us to go this way. So our hope is to
get this done, and we are trying for Inauguration Day or the
next day. So that is why we are pushing you on these questions.
That is our plan. That is our plan, and we want to stick to it.
So we thank you very much. I found you to be just an
excellent witness. I found your answers to our questions to be
extremely direct and I found you to be a breath of fresh air.
And I say that with its double meaning, because we do care
about air quality in this Committee.
So thank you, Ms. Jackson, we look forward to your speedy
confirmation. Thank you.
And we will ask Nancy Sutley to come right up. We are not
taking any breaks here. We are just going to move right in.
We are continuing our very important confirmation process.
I told Nancy Sutley, by the way, California's loss is the
Country's gain, I must say, again, that a lot of people would
be worn down and it might just be a little bit of an easier
process, even though she had to wait around. So we thank you so
much.
I am going to ask you these questions that I have to ask
right now to start. Then I have no opening statement, I am
going to go last. I am going to ask Senators Carper and
Whitehouse to go first, and I will go with whatever statement I
have.
So in order for our Committee to exercise our legislative
oversight, here are the questions. Do you agree, if confirmed
as the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, to
appear before this Committee or designated members of this
Committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress, and
provide information, subject to appropriate and necessary
security protection, with respect to your responsibilities as
Chairman of the CEQ?
Ms. Sutley. Yes, I do, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. And do you agree to ensure that testimony,
briefings, documents, and electronic and other forms of
information are provided to this Committee and its staff and
other appropriate committees in a timely fashion?
Ms. Sutley. Yes, I do.
Senator Boxer. And do you know of any matters which you may
or may not have disclosed that might place you in any conflict
of interest if you are confirmed as Chairman of the CEQ?
Ms. Sutley. I know of no matters that would present a
conflict.
Senator Boxer. That is very good.
And what I would like to do is ask you if you have any
relatives here who you would like to introduce.
Ms. Sutley. Yes, thank you, Senator.
I would like to introduce my parents, Bruno and Sarah
Sutley, my brother Steven, my sister Suzanne, who is sitting
behind me, and my nephew Nick Sutley.
Senator Boxer. Well, we welcome all. We thank you so much
for sharing Nancy with us. And as I said, I think what I am
going to do is really just ask questions. So I am going to
defer to my colleagues if they have any opening statements at
this point.
Senator Carper. Just to say publicly what I said to Ms.
Sutley just a few moments ago, another committee that I serve
on has a confirmation hearing starting for the President's
nominee for OMB. And I am going to stay for your statement, but
I have to leave shortly after that. And I will be submitting
some questions for the record, and would just ask that you
respond to those.
Congratulations and welcome.
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Boxer. Senator Whitehouse, do you have an opening
statement?
Senator Whitehouse. Nothing to add to the opening statement
at the beginning of the hearing.
Senator Boxer. OK. Very good.
So Nancy, will you please give us your opening statement?
STATEMENT OF NANCY HELEN SUTLEY, NOMINATED TO BE CHAIRMAN OF
THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to
extend my thanks to you and to Ranking Member Inhofe for
holding this hearing, and to you for your generous
introduction. I also would like to thank all the members of the
Committee for their thoughtful consideration and the time that
many of them set aside to meet with me in the last couple of
weeks.
I have already introduced my family, but I am very pleased
that they could join me here today.
Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, I am greatly
honored to be President-elect Obama's choice to chair the
Council on Environmental Quality. I have committed more than 20
years, the last 15 in public service, to protecting public
health and the environment and to energy and climate-change
issues. I have devoted much of that time to harmonizing the
efforts of multiple agencies covering different, and in some
cases overlapping, aspects of environmental concern.
I also bring the experience of working on environmental
policy at the Federal, State, and local level, and a resulting
appreciation of the role that each level of government plays in
protecting public health and the environment. I understand that
no one has a monopoly on creative and innovative ideas and
policies that promote sustainability and a strong economy. The
sum of this experience has given me a special appreciation for
the coordinating role that the Council on Environmental Quality
plays.
The President-elect has stated that a strong, sustainable
economy and a healthy environment can and must go hand in hand.
The President-elect has also emphasized that meeting our
environmental and energy challenges is one of the great needs
of our time. The Council on Environmental Quality will play an
important role in coordinating the efforts of the Federal
Government to build a cleaner environment and a sustainable
economy and future for our Nation.
I currently am Deputy Mayor for Energy and Environment for
the city of Los Angeles, where the Mayor has put a priority on
greening the city. I spent 6 years in State government in
California, using my environmental and energy experience,
serving as Deputy Secretary of the California Environmental
Protection Agency, an energy advisor to Governor Davis, and
finally as a member of the California State Water Resources
Control Board. I also spent 6 years at U.S. EPA, both at
Headquarters in Washington, DC. and at Region 9 in San
Francisco, working on innovative strategies to reduce air and
water pollution.
I am strongly committed to the mission of the Council on
Environmental Quality and to the objectives of the National
Environmental Policy Act. If confirmed as Chair, I will carry
its responsibilities with all that I have learned and with all
my energies. I recognize the need to have economically sound
environmental policy as part of CEQ's mission.
Madam Chairman, as you know, Congress created the Council
on Environmental Quality in the National Environmental Policy
Act. The Council's statutory responsibilities fall into three
categories.
First, the Council administers the Act's requirement that
Federal agencies prepare environmental impact statements before
undertaking major actions that significantly affect the
environment. My goal, if confirmed, will be to administer that
requirement in a straightforward, organized, and efficient way
that assures the public that the Federal Government understands
its environmental responsibilities as it carries out its
activities.
Second, the Act directs the Council to prepare and present
to the President and the American public reports on the state
of the environment, on environmental trends, and on the
environmental impacts of Government policies and activities. My
goal, if confirmed, will be to make those reports relevant,
concise, and credible.
Finally, the Act assigns the Council the responsibility to
develop and recommend to the President policies for improving
environmental quality. My goal, if confirmed, will be to help
coordinate environmental policy across the Federal Government
and ensure that those policies protect all of our communities.
The Council will work with Federal agencies and departments and
within the Executive Office of the President to assure the
best, most efficient and effective environmental outcomes.
My focus, if confirmed as Chair of the Council on
Environmental Quality, will be to ensure that there is a strong
science and policy basis to our environmental policy, to move
the Nation to greater reliance on clean energy and to increase
energy security, to combat global warming while growing the
green economy, to protect public health and the environment,
especially in our vulnerable communities, and to protect and
restore our great ecosystems.
My parents came to the United States in search of a better
life. I learned the values of hard work and integrity from
them. They also taught me how important it is to give back to
the community, and I have devoted much of my career to public
service. I have tried to honor those values by working toward
protecting our communities and our environment. If I am
confirmed, I look forward to working with this Committee and
the Congress and to carry out the goals of the National
Environmental Policy Act and the mission of the Council on
Environmental Quality.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sutley follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4020.063
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Madam Chairman, I need to leave. But can I
just say one quick word?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Carper. I was in the back room saying hello,
meeting Kenny Jackson, Lisa's husband. And Nancy and her family
walked right by and I didn't say hello, I just didn't know who
you were. I just want to say, particularly to your parents, a
special thanks for raising your children and instilling in them
the kinds of values that Nancy has spoken to. Kids don't end up
this well without the involvement of Mom and Dad, and we just
appreciate very much what you have done in providing her for
our Country. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Tom. You speak for all of us.
Providing technical support is my first question. Expert
Federal agencies have a long history of working with
congressional committees on important matters, at least they
did, up until recently, including public health and
environmental problems, to ensure that such problems are
resolved using the best information available. Do you commit to
renewing this cooperative approach to problem-solving between
our two branches of Government on public health and
environmental issues?
Ms. Sutley. Madam Chair, yes, I will.
Senator Boxer. Well, that is what we need to hear.
Could you describe your view of CEQ's role in developing
information, assessing public health and environmental threats
and an interagency effort to address such threats? Give us an
example of how you see your role.
Ms. Sutley. CEQ's traditional role and the role I would
intend to carry on for CEQ is that it is the voice for the
environment in the White House and in the management of the
executive branch. So CEQ can call upon the technical expertise
in all of the agencies to help us to understand what
environmental threats are affecting our Country and how we
might address those. And CEQ also plays a role in bringing
Federal agencies together when there is a dispute or difference
of opinion or just an issue that needs to be resolved between
two Federal agencies on environmental policy. I think that is a
very important role for CEQ to play, and with the expertise
both in-house and in the agencies to ensure that the best
environmental decisionmaking is made by the Federal Government.
Senator Boxer. And so you would be advising the President
as to where the different agencies are coming out on a certain
issue? Take global warming, as an example. If there are
differences, you would present those to the President and you
would more than likely give him your best view on it, is that
correct?
Ms. Sutley. That is correct, Madam Chair. The role of CEQ
really is to provide advice to the President on the important
environmental issues of the day. And global warming certainly
is at the top of I know this Committee's list and certainly the
President-elect's mind.
Senator Boxer. Now, your predecessor went to the various
international conferences on global warming, and in my view, he
didn't do much to move it forward. Are you planning to go to
Copenhagen, if you are fortunate enough to be confirmed, and
work to make sure that the President's point of view is out
there?
Ms. Sutley. Madam Chairman, if I am confirmed, I will play
an important role in the formulation of the executive branch's
views on climate policy. But as the President-elect believes,
this is an issue that will involve the entire Federal
Government, really almost no agency is untouched by climate
change and how to respond, formulating an appropriate response
to climate change. So I will be working with my colleagues in
the White House and Executive Office of the President and
throughout the executive branch. So some of those decisions
about who attends which conferences have not been made yet.
Senator Boxer. Fair enough.
Ms. Sutley. But it will be an organized and complete effort
on the part of the executive branch to address global warming.
Senator Boxer. Good. Could you describe what your view of
the Office of Management and Budget's role should be in
developing interagency environmental health protection efforts,
and in resolving interagency disputes over environmental health
issues?
Ms. Sutley. Well, Madam Chairman, the OMB has a
responsibility under executive orders to facilitate a
regulatory review process which ensures that all Federal
agencies at least have an opportunity to look at regulations
before they are issued. I think that the science decisionmaking
and the science review should be done by experts in science at
the expert agencies like EPA and Interior, where there are
experts in the field. I don't view it as the role of CEQ, or I
wouldn't expect others within the EOP, unless they are
scientists, to have a role in reviewing the science.
But there is a role for, a process for managing regulations
to ensure that everyone has a chance to look at them.
Senator Boxer. Well, what has happened in the past is OMB
has gotten involved and essentially called the shots on a lot
of this in the past. And we are concerned. So let me just say
it is a red flag. Now, the Obama OMB may be very different than
the Bush OMB. We don't know. But you have to watch out for
that, because we want everyone's advice about costs and
everything else. But what we look to you for is that leadership
on the environment. That is your focus. And we just want to
make sure that OMB coming in doesn't change what you think is
important strictly from an environmental and health standpoint.
Now, from what you have said, I feel good about it. You
said that is your role. And I just would put up a cautionary
note here, because OMB sometimes gets themselves infused in
these things from a budgetary standpoint. And when they make
their calls, they are not always accurate, because they don't
really measure the cost of a regulation in terms of its
remedial nature, when you save so many people from getting
cancer.
So you may find yourself in a struggle sometimes. I guess
what I am saying is, look out for that. Because you may come
out with what you think is a very cost-effective idea and they
will say, no, it isn't. But they don't measure it in the same
way that we should be measuring it in terms of the environment.
This could come into play, for example, the true cost of
different types of energy. We line them up, but did we ever
take into account a coal ash spill like the ones we are dealing
with now as far as the true cost of coal? On nuclear, it is
very clean, but what do we do with the waste?
So I am simply saying that when somebody comes to your
office and sits down and puts their feet up on your desk and
says, well, you haven't thought about the costs, I think you
will need to engage. Because this has been a clear problem for
a while here with OMB.
I just have two more questions. The IRIS program, are you
familiar with that program?
Ms. Sutley. Yes, I am.
Senator Boxer. The IRIS program. The EPA and other Federal,
State and local officials used these risk assessments under the
IRIS program to create safety standards, including drinking
water, clean air and toxic waste cleanup. In April, the
Assistant Administrator of EPA, whose name is Peacock, issued a
memo that radically altered the agency's process of developing
these assessments. This policy put OMB in the driver's seat,
this is an example of why I was asking about OMB, and elevated
polluters' interests ahead of public health concerns.
The independent GAO found the policy reduced transparency
and it harmed the integrity of the risk assessment process, and
they recommended it be withdrawn. Now, we didn't go into this
question on exactly what was said, but as I remember it, the
special interests had a seat at the table, DOD and others, who
have a conflict in this. And the whole IRIS program was really
taken over by the special interests. And this memo, which has
been so highly criticized by the GAO and members of this
Committee, we need to see it be withdrawn.
What are your views on withdrawing this memo and on CEQ's
role in resolving these types of issues? Because you said that
is your role. Where DOD comes in, and EPA is there, what do you
see your role in resolving these types of issues while you
ensure that you are not delaying public health protections?
Ms. Sutley. The President-elect has placed a very high
priority on restoring scientific integrity to our environmental
policies. I would take that commitment very seriously, if
confirmed, and work closely with EPA on how we might address
some of these issues that have arisen. As I said, one of CEQ's
roles is to be the voice for the environment. CEQ also has this
important role of bringing agencies together to try to resolve
disputes. I think that I would certainly make that a priority
for me, if confirmed, to have CEQ play that role in a
constructive way, respecting the science, respecting the
technical expertise that lies at the agencies and the
commitment to protecting public health and the environment.
Senator Boxer. Well, you know, these problems could go away
with the new Administration. But in the old Administration, we
had special interest agencies that, you know, DOD had a big
interest in stopping some of the cleanup. Because a lot of the
toxic cleanup they were involved in. And CEQ was just absent.
They didn't do anything.
So I guess I will just say once again, if it turns out that
some of the agencies are trying to influence environmental
regulations who really don't have that as part of their
portfolio, the last I checked, DOD was supposed to defend the
Country. And that is what I want them to do. I don't want them
to be involved in environmental regulations.
So if you see that over at the CEQ, I assume what you just
said will answer my question, that your job as you see it is to
say, look, we understand you have concerns for certain reasons,
and you may, and you may, but as far as CEQ is concerned, the
science says we have to clean it up to this level, and that is
what I am going to recommend in terms of your role. Would that
be a fair way to describe your role?
Ms. Sutley. Yes, Madam Chair. When Congress passed the
National Environmental Policy Act and created CEQ, the intent
was to make sure that Federal activities, that we were
assessing the environmental impacts and considering the
environmental impacts of Federal activities, so that the
Federal Government could live up to its responsibilities to
protect human health and the environment. That has always been
CEQ's role and it should always be CEQ's role, and I intend, if
confirmed, to make sure that CEQ is a strong voice for the
environment in the executive branch.
Senator Boxer. Well, I thank you. Sometimes I feel, well, I
didn't see any strong voice in the executive branch for a very,
very long time. And just having you here makes me feel really
good, that these issues will be raised.
Very last question. What I really want to see, and a lot of
us do, is an openness. And we are going to probably be asking
you for your opinions and papers and so on. Could we count on
that, that you will work with us? Because we are all on the
same team here. Our job is to make sure that we protect the
public. And your job is to make sure that the White House does
the same.
So could we make sure that we have this open relationship
where we can really talk to you at a moment's notice and sit
down and not have between us the fact that, well, you are in
the Executive, we are in the Legislative? It goes to what
Senator Voinovich said, the need to really cooperate. Can we
get that assurance that you will be there for us?
Ms. Sutley. Absolutely, Madam Chair. I believe that as the
President-elect does that openness and transparency in our
decisionmaking leads to better decisionmaking, and that we have
an important relationship between, there is an important
relationship between the executive branch and the legislative
branch and that we need to work together. I have in my career
in State government and local government, we found very helpful
and useful ways to work together between the executive branch
and the legislative branch.
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you very much.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Sutley, first of all, thank you for subjecting yourself
to all of the not particularly appealing attributes of public
service. I know that you are in this for the very best of
reasons and I applaud your decision to do it. I think
particularly at this time in our history, you are stepping into
a vitally important role. It will be, I am sure, frustrating
and annoying frequently. But I think it will also be
fascinating and I hope very rewarding for you, and all the long
hours, I very much hope you will look back at as having been
worth it.
I want to follow up on the Chairman's point about OMB,
since both organizations are located in the White House. To be
perfectly blunt, I think OMB was the political fixer for the
Administration in the agency regulatory process in the past. In
the IRIS process that the Chairman referred to, OMB had not
one, not two but three different inputs into the process, the
last one after the public record had closed and when there were
no further steps before official release of the regulation. So
it had a secret, last-minute review, in essence, of what had
been a public APA-based agency rulemaking process.
And first of all, whenever you do that, you really make
everybody, you play everybody who participated in the public
process for a fool when the ultimate end story is that a secret
deal was cut between the agency director and somebody at OMB
and the rest was just for show. So it is really bad process to
begin with. And then it ends up with really unfortunate
results. The chair of EPA's own Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee said that, pointed out how regulations, her phrases
were, there was the OMB and the White House who actually set
the standard, that the entire agency process had in effect been
a sham, that the result was willful ignorance triumphant, and
that it was all done by fiat and behind closed doors. That is
really lousy practice from a governmental point of view. And
the result here obviously was harmful to the health of the
people we are all here to stick up for.
As I told, I forget whether I told it to her here in this
hearing earlier or when we met, but Administrator Jackson, this
is an issue that I have taken up with OMB, and I think their
new folks are attuned to it and don't want to continue that
tradition, that unfortunate tradition. But I would like to
emphasize and reiterate my support for the Chairman's focus on
this particular point. It is bad governance, it is bad results,
bad policy, all of it. It has to stop, irrespective of who is
in power.
I think frankly, assuming we have legitimate governance on
this subject going forward, which I very much expect under
President Obama, now is the opportunity to try to set up the
protocols where that stuff can't happen again when others may
come back into power and wish to revisit those techniques. So I
emphasize that.
We have never on this Committee had a situation, at least
to my knowledge, where we had you coming in, assuming that you
are confirmed to run the Council on Environmental Quality and
an EPA Administrator coming in and also a White House
environmental climate change czar coming in. What can you tell
us about the structure of that? Who has what role? They are
titles to me at this point, but there is nothing resembling
sort of an org chart that helps me place where people all are.
What is your view on how that is going to work itself out?
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Senator. The question of the role of
the White House Advisor on Energy and Climate Change and sort
of how the energy and climate change policies will be
formulated is an important one. I speak for myself and I
believe Lisa Jackson would say the same thing, which is that
CEQ would retain all its statutory responsibilities and its
role as advisor to the President on environmental issues, as
EPA would continue to function in that way as well.
I think the President-elect recognizes that energy and
climate change is truly one of the great challenges of our day,
and how we resolve this is going to take the creativity and
thought of a lot of people throughout the executive branch and
working with the Congress. So I can tell you that we will be
working together closely and that the decisions about which
policies to recommend and to pursue will really lie with the
President, that he will get our best advice.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you know, for instance, if on
climate change issues you will report to the President through
Carol Browner?
Ms. Sutley. Well, I think we will work together very
closely on formulating policies to recommend to the President.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, let me put it this way. When you
do know, if you could let us know, let me know anyway, it would
be helpful, just for purposes of knowing who to call on what
purpose. Because I think we are going to have, as the Chairman
suggested, a very close relationship working together, going
forward, and knowing how you are structured is important to us,
as knowing how we are structured is to you.
The last question I will ask has to do with the oceans.
Rhode Island is the Ocean State. In this Committee, we have
jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
Both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and their
enforcement have significant consequences for our waterways,
our estuaries and our oceans. And I am wondering, you come from
a very significant coastal State. I think we may be able to
fight you pound for pound, person for person as to whether
Rhode Island or California has more coastline per citizen. But
you certainly have it overall.
Senator Boxer. However, without taking any of your time
away--I have given you another 5 minutes. But I figure this
way. If we did have to fight Rhode Island, 37 million people
versus 1 million, I will take it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Whitehouse. You have no idea how fierce Rhode
Islanders can be.
[Laughter.]
Senator Whitehouse. So my question to you is, you have been
involved with a coastal State, you must have been deeply
involved with coastal issues. What is your vision for helping
to protect our oceans and coasts, and for coordinating the
multi-agency Government approach necessary to adequately
address the very serious issues facing our oceans and fisheries
and coastal infrastructure and so forth?
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Senator. I think I won't comment on
the coastline question of who has more.
Senator Whitehouse. Oh, you have more. It would be more per
person.
Ms. Sutley. Per capita. But if there is any issue that
cries out for interagency coordination and for an entity like
CEQ to help to bring Federal agencies together, there are just
a panoply of Federal agencies who have a role in dealing with
our oceans, with protecting our coastline. I know it is an
issue that CEQ has been involved in and we tend to continue
that involvement, to look at ways that we can be more
effective, to look at ways to reach out to coastal States like
Rhode Island and California to ensure that we are doing the
things that we need to do to protect our oceans. It is a very
critical issue, and one that is sort of the prototyping of an
issue that CEQ can be involved in to bring agencies together
and to also ensure that the impact that Federal agencies'
activities on a resource like the oceans are well-considered
and addressed.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes, I am sort of preaching to the
choir here, I am sure. But as you know, for instance, we have
seen both considerable warming of Narragansett Bay and species
adjustments that have resulted, winter flounder much
diminished, scup much increased, for instance, to the great
detriment of our fishing community. And we have also seen the
beginnings of the ocean rise that will accompany further global
warming. There is no likelihood, I think, of it getting better.
It is likely to get worse, if anything.
And a little bit of sea level increase can pile up to a
very big effect in a flood modeling situation where you have
velocity zones. Narragansett Bay, for instance, is sort of a
wedge driven up into Rhode Island with Providence at the tip. A
fairly thin increment of additional sea level in Narragansett
Bay, when it is pushed before a major hurricane, for instance,
like the hurricane of 1938, can make an enormous difference in
the storm surge up in our capital city at the business end.
So it is really important to us, really, if anything, it is
the issue immediately behind climate change, to make sure that
there is a comprehensive and thoughtful oceans strategy that
particularly focuses on coastal issues. I think it is an area
where you will find we are very bipartisan. You can go right
down the Atlantic Seaboard and it is all the same Atlantic
Ocean, even if Senators have very different political
persuasions.
But it is also an area in which our own body, the Senate,
has some of its own internal difficulties, because the Commerce
Committee has jurisdiction in this area directly, we have it
through the estuaries, through the Clean Air Act, through the
Clean Water Act and through some of the public works programs
that we supervise here. So there is a kind of a potential level
of multiple confusion here at a time when we really can't
afford it any longer.
So I very much look forward to working with you on that and
helping to draw some clear policy out of all the administrative
confusion.
Ms. Sutley. I look forward to working with you on that,
Senator. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Well, you will be really relieved to know
that I think this says the Senators have confidence in the
selection of you to have this position, which is a wonderful
thing to know. And the same we said to Lisa Jackson, we are
going to send you some written questions. And we need to have
them back by Friday noon, so that we can move your nomination
forward. The hope is to discharge from the Committee, bring it
right to the floor for a vote.
Do I have your commitment to get that done?
Ms. Sutley. Yes, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Excellent.
Well, we thank you, Nancy, very much, and we thank your
family for standing by all these many hours. We thank everyone
who was here since early morning for their patience.
I think we are on a new road, a much better road, and the
American people will be better off because of that road, they
will be much better off because of Nancy Sutley and Lisa
Jackson. I am convinced of that.
Thank you very much. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:27 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[all]