U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

94–020 PDF 2015

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 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

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 
Page

IV 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statement of the Engine Manufacturers Association ........................................... 152 
(1) 

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 
2 

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. 
3 

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. 
4 

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 
5 

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. 
6 

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. 
7 

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. 
8 

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 
9 

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. 
10 

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 
11 

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 Pro-
12 

tection 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. 
13 

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. 
14 

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. 
15 

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. 
16 

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. 
17 

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 
18 

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 
19 

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 Min-
20 

nesota 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 Chairmandesignate 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 
21 

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. 
22 

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 
23 

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. 
24 

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 Presidentelect 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 
25 

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:] 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

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. 
31 

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 
32 

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 Presidentelect 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 
33 

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. 
34 

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. 
35 

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. 
36 

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 
37 

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 
38 

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 Gov-
39 

ernment 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:] 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 

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. 
73 

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. 
74 

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. 
75 

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 
76 

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, 
77 

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. 
78 

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? 
79 

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 
80 

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 reask 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. 
81 

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. 
82 

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 
83 

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:] 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 

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. 
93 

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. 
94 

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 
95 

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. 
96 

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. 
97 

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 
98 

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. 
99 

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. 
100 

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 
101 

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 
102 

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. 
103 

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 lowhanging 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 
104 

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, CarperVoinovich. 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. 
105 

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 
106 

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 re-
107 

sponsibilities 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 hard-
108 

est 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 
109 

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 
110 

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 
111 

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 shortterm, 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 
112 

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. 
113 

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. 
114 

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. 
115 

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 confirma-
116 

tion, 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 
117 

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 
118 

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. 
119 

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 selfcertifying 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. 
120 

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 ac-
121 

tual 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 be-
122 

fore 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 en-
123 

vironment 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 en-
124 

vironmental 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:] 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 

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 problemsolving 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 Presidentelect’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? 
145 

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? 
146 

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. 
147 

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 
148 

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 
149 

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. 
150 

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 
151 

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:] 
152